While I think this was egregious, I also think it's wrong to immediately jump to malicious intent on the part of the companies management or PR folk.
I think it's far more likely that an employee was in a position to make a change and managed to sneak it past others, and management just caught asleep at the wheel. It's not too hard for me to imagine a situation where management told the employee to stop, the employee reported that they did, but either they didn't, or may have been incompetent enough to not permanently disable it.
Given the choice between malice and incompetence, I'm going to err on the side of incompetence every time.
In this case, I think they did a good job. They've admitted culpability, they've made more than appropriate restitution, and they've apologized. Personally, I think they can be given a little grace.
If they ever do anything that reeks of this again, however, I'd be more than willing to nail them to the wall for it.
All depends on how they go about doing it. If they can increase profit without upping revenue by getting more efficient and better at what they do, then I have no problem with that.
If they go the other way and degrade service to bring down overhead, obviously, not so good.
That's the way it should work. Unfortunately, reality is quite a bit different.
You're absolutely correct in that supply is fixed. You're also absolutely correct that there's flexibility in demand (which is presently going up and shows no signs of going the other way).
Your flaw is that entire public good thing.
Either the resource is to be allocated and managed for the public good, or it isn't. Given that AT&T and Verizon own such a large portion of spectrum already, the question becomes are they managing it for the public good or not. The sentiment seems to be that they're not, and as such, shouldn't be allowed to acquire more.
If that is true, then we're not getting good value from allowing them to use our resource. So why do we continue to allow them to use it? If we have no choice but to continue to allow them to use it, then the resource is not really a public one to be used for the public good.
If we are getting good value from allowing them to use our resource, then why is it a bad thing to allow them more?
It truly sticks in my craw to have to have to play advocate for Verizon and AT&T, I loathe them as corporate entities, and they're some of our best customers (I work for a company that provides a very large amount of cell backhaul for Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint).
But this entire public good argument is horseshit. The reality, whether you care to admit it or not, is that wireless spectrum is a commodity like any other. The only thing the fixed supply does is drive prices up when demand increases. Whether or not it should be that way is an entirely separate argument.
Now that argument, I don't have a problem with (and I actually agree with). Proving yourself effective at managing the resources you already have before being granted more of the same is a much better argument for kicking Verizon and AT&T out of the auction than the argument of 'other people should have a chance just cuz'.
That sounds good in theory, but in practice it's a lot harder to take it away once it's been handed out than it is to keep them from getting it in the first place.
Which pretty much hamstrings the argument that wireless spectrum is a public resource to be allocated for the public good, doesn't it?
Here's reality - the wireless spectrum is a commodity like any other, and once in the hands of a private entity, the public good has little, if anything, to do with it. Said private entity is going to attempt to exploit the resource in the name of revenue and profit just like AT&T and Verizon would.
But wait, I thought revenue and profit were bad for the public good?
I strongly suspect that once you get past the facade of rationality that folks who want to hinder AT&T and Verizon's ability to acquire spectrum, you'll find the primary reason for their opposition is something along the lines of "I really fucking hate AT&T/Verizon"
No, my assumption is that someone other than AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile being awarded the spectrum does not automatically equal public good.
It still takes a fortune to build the infrastructure to support a wireless network. The argument being made here is that if one of the big providers were to acquire the spectrum, they'd take the cost out on their customers.
Surely y'all aren't naive enough to believe that whomever acquires the spectrum *isn't* going to do the same. They still need to be competitive, which means they still need to make money, and so they're still going to charge rates that are within the ballpark of AT&T and Verizon. If they're significantly lower, then yes, it may force AT&T and Verizon to adjust their prices downward, at least in certain markets (I seriously doubt that any other likely purchasers are going to become players on a national level).
Or, more likely, AT&T and Verizon adjust their prices to actually be lower, stealing the competitors customers, strangling their revenue, and eventually putting them out of business. AT&T and Verizon can afford to absorb a short term loss to deal with a competitor. Once said competitor is no longer an issue, prices go up again.
You don't think this happens? You've never witnessed what happens when a Wal-Mart moves into an area that previously had none.
In order to actually compete with AT&T and Verizon, you need to offer a superior product and superior service, at a better price. Good luck.
Are you not paying attention to what I said? I understand completely that this can't be a situation where you just open the floodgates and whomever can bring you the most cash wins.
I have a problem with restricting the bidders in the name of 'competition'. Excluding viable competitors just to let other folks have a shot has absolutely nothing to do with the public good.
If AT&T and Verizon are capable of managing additional spectrum in a responsible manner that is consistent with the public good, they should not be hamstrung from the process of acquiring more. I have yet to see a valid argument as to why either of them acquiring more spectrum actually harms the public good.
If they prove themselves poor caretakers, then simply take it back and give it to someone else. After all, the resource belongs to the public and is administered by the government right?
If you think that the government can't (or shouldn't be able to) take back auctioned off spectrum, then I guess it's not really a public resource after all, now is it?
I am by no means a fan of AT&T or Verizon, but the concept of preventing a company from bidding on something in the name of competition strikes me as... anti-competitive. I'm a firm believer in a free market economy and this reeks of giving all the kids a trophy just for playing.
I'm sure a large part of the decision to toss em in the garbage was because someone wanted new gear. Can't forget about the political element to an IT infrastructure.
I don't know, I figure that some folks may be willing to give them a nod for making their point in a creative way. Once upon a time, I wore my eyepatch with pride, but that was before I could afford to actually pay for stuff. If I were still so inclined, I have enough of a sense of humor that I probably would go buy the full version.
While some of them may be faked, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out the majority are actually real.
There are a couple of things that make me think this way:
#1 - After seeing some of the stuff that Jimmy Kimmel's fans do at his suggestion, it's not terribly hard to believe that there are a horde of Twits out there who would see the initital tweet from Fielder, and immediately think "THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!" and turn around and do it.
#2 - While my observations are purely anecdotal, I've noticed a distinct lack of impulse control and good judgement from those who tend to be glued to their phones. Particularly among the younger generation.
I'll admit, when I first saw the article, it tickled my mischievous side, and I considered doing it. However, anyone who knows me (particularly my parents) would know I was fucking with them. My brother, on the other hand...
I'm sure the downvotes will be coming in droves, but frankly, it's amazing how insecure Android users seem to be. This article has absolutely nothing to do with what type of Smartphone the pranksters use, and yet here's someone where the first reaction is to point out 'Android has market share! See! See! See!!!!'.
For a bunch of supposedly smart people, we nerds can be pretty freaking stupid sometimes.
BitTorrent is, conceptually, best used as a reimplementation of multicast. Multicast is probably far more efficient when it comes to the actual data distribution, but multicast (specifically, routing multicast) is one of those blackbox things that not a huge number of people understand. Last time I checked, I couldn't route a multicast source from a Comcast connection and have the data arrive on a receiver on the Cox network.
However, there was still a need for a protocol that could effectively do one to many distribution for the masses. Enter bittorrent. It fills the void nicely, and has the additional benefit that once a receiver has all the data from a given source, it then becomes a source itself, thereby increasing the aggregate bandwidth available for the feed, as well as making the feed resilient.
You're confusing broadcast domain with collision domain.
On a switch, a collision domain is limited to the link itself, ie, collisions aren't possible. However, all ports on the switch (or all ports in the same VLAN, if the switch is manageable) share the same broadcast domain, which merely allows for all ports to contribute to saturation, but there still won't be any collisions
I would put more faith in Harrison Ford's appearance if I hadn't seen Indiana Jones Meets the Aliens. Ford's involvement sadly does nothing to indicate script quality.
The cynical side of me wonders if J.J . Abrams is going to be able to find a way to make time travel work as a plot mechanism in the Star Wars universe.
*sigh* when did I turn into such a cynical old fart when it comes to my sci/fi
Yeah, some of us see the Ewoks as the beginning of the stupidification of the series. There's a reason I cheer when the Stormtroopers actually manage to kill some of the little Ruxpins. Of course, trying to explain why I'm cheering to my kids can be a little awkward. My complaints of blatant commercialization and manipulation of a young audience seems to do nothing to dispel the disapproving stares.
You're forgetting their purchases of Compellent and Force10. Dell figured out awhile ago that there's no real future in commodity PC making, and decided to focus on providing services, as well as a complete end to end data center solution. Where Dell makes their money now is by selling you Dell servers, Dell network gear, Dell storage, and the service contracts that go along with supporting all of that.
Wrong scanner. This is the milimeter wave scanner that they're not wanting to be removed. The porn scanners are the ones being permanently removed, and they're pulling the milimeter wave scanners out of the smaller airports to replace the porn scanners they're yanking from the bigger airports.
You do understand that screening candidates for open positions, while part of the job description, doesn't tend to be part of the daily normal workflow, yes? Most large companies expect you to be able to screen and interview candidates as well as being able to perform your normal workload, you don't get a reduction just because your team is a member (or three) down.
There comes a certain point where scale is an issue, whether it's in the number of positions open, the number of potential candidates, or both. Once those factors hit a tipping point, the manager has a few choices. Stay late, Take work home, or get some help. The first tends to be unhealthy. The second is an extension of the first, but more likely to cause issues at home if you have a family. Which means getting some help.
On our team, this means our managers enlist the senior members of the team, which is the way we prefer it. We'd like to be able to give some feedback on the people we're going to have to work with before it's a done deal, and this has helped us avoid some bad hires. If a hiring manager is not in the position to do so, then I can't say I blame them for turning to HR for help, even if most HR departments aren't exactly stellar at screening candidates (especially in the tech world)
Don't you think the calls of an anti-monopoly breakup are a little melodramatic?
Last time I checked, there were other companies offering the same thing from the services side. Names like Cox, Charter, AT&T.
Last time I checked, there were other companies producing content. Names like ABC and CBS and Fox.
Comcast is in the unique position of being both a content delivery system, and a content generator, but it is hardly the only game in town on either side. Until we've reached a point where your only choice for delivery of services is the Comcast network, and the only source of content is that which was created by Comcast, any calls for an anti-trust breakup is a crock.
But you go on ahead and get your internet reactionary/revolutionary thing going on. And if you happen to be a Comcast customer, posting your drivel from the Comcast network, I hope you understand the irony.
Look, I'm a Comcast employee, on the operations side. I can assure you beyond the shadow of a doubt that we Ops folks do not think like this. Most of us are customers as well as employees, you think we want to be making our own service suck on purpose?
I do an awful lot of work in the realm of capacity increase and augmentation on the Comcast network. Restriction isn't what we're about. We would much rather beat our competitors by simply offering a better product.
Slashdot Mirror
While I think this was egregious, I also think it's wrong to immediately jump to malicious intent on the part of the companies management or PR folk.
I think it's far more likely that an employee was in a position to make a change and managed to sneak it past others, and management just caught asleep at the wheel. It's not too hard for me to imagine a situation where management told the employee to stop, the employee reported that they did, but either they didn't, or may have been incompetent enough to not permanently disable it.
Given the choice between malice and incompetence, I'm going to err on the side of incompetence every time.
In this case, I think they did a good job. They've admitted culpability, they've made more than appropriate restitution, and they've apologized. Personally, I think they can be given a little grace.
If they ever do anything that reeks of this again, however, I'd be more than willing to nail them to the wall for it.
All depends on how they go about doing it. If they can increase profit without upping revenue by getting more efficient and better at what they do, then I have no problem with that.
If they go the other way and degrade service to bring down overhead, obviously, not so good.
But could you do it as a private company?
If not, could you do it while making enough profit to demonstrate fiduciary responsibility and keep your shareholders from rioting?
So, basically, we should give it to someone else because they might suck less.
I'm not real fond of that choice either.
That's the way it should work. Unfortunately, reality is quite a bit different.
You're absolutely correct in that supply is fixed. You're also absolutely correct that there's flexibility in demand (which is presently going up and shows no signs of going the other way).
Your flaw is that entire public good thing.
Either the resource is to be allocated and managed for the public good, or it isn't. Given that AT&T and Verizon own such a large portion of spectrum already, the question becomes are they managing it for the public good or not. The sentiment seems to be that they're not, and as such, shouldn't be allowed to acquire more.
If that is true, then we're not getting good value from allowing them to use our resource. So why do we continue to allow them to use it? If we have no choice but to continue to allow them to use it, then the resource is not really a public one to be used for the public good.
If we are getting good value from allowing them to use our resource, then why is it a bad thing to allow them more?
It truly sticks in my craw to have to have to play advocate for Verizon and AT&T, I loathe them as corporate entities, and they're some of our best customers (I work for a company that provides a very large amount of cell backhaul for Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint).
But this entire public good argument is horseshit. The reality, whether you care to admit it or not, is that wireless spectrum is a commodity like any other. The only thing the fixed supply does is drive prices up when demand increases. Whether or not it should be that way is an entirely separate argument.
Now that argument, I don't have a problem with (and I actually agree with). Proving yourself effective at managing the resources you already have before being granted more of the same is a much better argument for kicking Verizon and AT&T out of the auction than the argument of 'other people should have a chance just cuz'.
That sounds good in theory, but in practice it's a lot harder to take it away once it's been handed out than it is to keep them from getting it in the first place.
Which pretty much hamstrings the argument that wireless spectrum is a public resource to be allocated for the public good, doesn't it?
Here's reality - the wireless spectrum is a commodity like any other, and once in the hands of a private entity, the public good has little, if anything, to do with it. Said private entity is going to attempt to exploit the resource in the name of revenue and profit just like AT&T and Verizon would.
But wait, I thought revenue and profit were bad for the public good?
I strongly suspect that once you get past the facade of rationality that folks who want to hinder AT&T and Verizon's ability to acquire spectrum, you'll find the primary reason for their opposition is something along the lines of "I really fucking hate AT&T/Verizon"
No, my assumption is that someone other than AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile being awarded the spectrum does not automatically equal public good.
It still takes a fortune to build the infrastructure to support a wireless network. The argument being made here is that if one of the big providers were to acquire the spectrum, they'd take the cost out on their customers.
Surely y'all aren't naive enough to believe that whomever acquires the spectrum *isn't* going to do the same. They still need to be competitive, which means they still need to make money, and so they're still going to charge rates that are within the ballpark of AT&T and Verizon. If they're significantly lower, then yes, it may force AT&T and Verizon to adjust their prices downward, at least in certain markets (I seriously doubt that any other likely purchasers are going to become players on a national level).
Or, more likely, AT&T and Verizon adjust their prices to actually be lower, stealing the competitors customers, strangling their revenue, and eventually putting them out of business. AT&T and Verizon can afford to absorb a short term loss to deal with a competitor. Once said competitor is no longer an issue, prices go up again.
You don't think this happens? You've never witnessed what happens when a Wal-Mart moves into an area that previously had none.
In order to actually compete with AT&T and Verizon, you need to offer a superior product and superior service, at a better price. Good luck.
Are you not paying attention to what I said? I understand completely that this can't be a situation where you just open the floodgates and whomever can bring you the most cash wins.
I have a problem with restricting the bidders in the name of 'competition'. Excluding viable competitors just to let other folks have a shot has absolutely nothing to do with the public good.
If AT&T and Verizon are capable of managing additional spectrum in a responsible manner that is consistent with the public good, they should not be hamstrung from the process of acquiring more. I have yet to see a valid argument as to why either of them acquiring more spectrum actually harms the public good.
If they prove themselves poor caretakers, then simply take it back and give it to someone else. After all, the resource belongs to the public and is administered by the government right?
If you think that the government can't (or shouldn't be able to) take back auctioned off spectrum, then I guess it's not really a public resource after all, now is it?
I am by no means a fan of AT&T or Verizon, but the concept of preventing a company from bidding on something in the name of competition strikes me as... anti-competitive. I'm a firm believer in a free market economy and this reeks of giving all the kids a trophy just for playing.
I'm sure a large part of the decision to toss em in the garbage was because someone wanted new gear. Can't forget about the political element to an IT infrastructure.
You're assuming space travel will never be commercialized.
I don't know, I figure that some folks may be willing to give them a nod for making their point in a creative way. Once upon a time, I wore my eyepatch with pride, but that was before I could afford to actually pay for stuff. If I were still so inclined, I have enough of a sense of humor that I probably would go buy the full version.
While some of them may be faked, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out the majority are actually real.
There are a couple of things that make me think this way:
#1 - After seeing some of the stuff that Jimmy Kimmel's fans do at his suggestion, it's not terribly hard to believe that there are a horde of Twits out there who would see the initital tweet from Fielder, and immediately think "THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!" and turn around and do it.
#2 - While my observations are purely anecdotal, I've noticed a distinct lack of impulse control and good judgement from those who tend to be glued to their phones. Particularly among the younger generation.
I'll admit, when I first saw the article, it tickled my mischievous side, and I considered doing it. However, anyone who knows me (particularly my parents) would know I was fucking with them. My brother, on the other hand...
I'm sure the downvotes will be coming in droves, but frankly, it's amazing how insecure Android users seem to be. This article has absolutely nothing to do with what type of Smartphone the pranksters use, and yet here's someone where the first reaction is to point out 'Android has market share! See! See! See!!!!'.
For a bunch of supposedly smart people, we nerds can be pretty freaking stupid sometimes.
BitTorrent is, conceptually, best used as a reimplementation of multicast. Multicast is probably far more efficient when it comes to the actual data distribution, but multicast (specifically, routing multicast) is one of those blackbox things that not a huge number of people understand. Last time I checked, I couldn't route a multicast source from a Comcast connection and have the data arrive on a receiver on the Cox network.
However, there was still a need for a protocol that could effectively do one to many distribution for the masses. Enter bittorrent. It fills the void nicely, and has the additional benefit that once a receiver has all the data from a given source, it then becomes a source itself, thereby increasing the aggregate bandwidth available for the feed, as well as making the feed resilient.
You're confusing broadcast domain with collision domain.
On a switch, a collision domain is limited to the link itself, ie, collisions aren't possible. However, all ports on the switch (or all ports in the same VLAN, if the switch is manageable) share the same broadcast domain, which merely allows for all ports to contribute to saturation, but there still won't be any collisions
We also got to see C-3PO all blowed up. No such joy with Jar Jar.
I would put more faith in Harrison Ford's appearance if I hadn't seen Indiana Jones Meets the Aliens. Ford's involvement sadly does nothing to indicate script quality.
The cynical side of me wonders if J.J . Abrams is going to be able to find a way to make time travel work as a plot mechanism in the Star Wars universe.
*sigh* when did I turn into such a cynical old fart when it comes to my sci/fi
Yeah, some of us see the Ewoks as the beginning of the stupidification of the series. There's a reason I cheer when the Stormtroopers actually manage to kill some of the little Ruxpins. Of course, trying to explain why I'm cheering to my kids can be a little awkward. My complaints of blatant commercialization and manipulation of a young audience seems to do nothing to dispel the disapproving stares.
You're forgetting their purchases of Compellent and Force10. Dell figured out awhile ago that there's no real future in commodity PC making, and decided to focus on providing services, as well as a complete end to end data center solution. Where Dell makes their money now is by selling you Dell servers, Dell network gear, Dell storage, and the service contracts that go along with supporting all of that.
Wrong scanner. This is the milimeter wave scanner that they're not wanting to be removed. The porn scanners are the ones being permanently removed, and they're pulling the milimeter wave scanners out of the smaller airports to replace the porn scanners they're yanking from the bigger airports.
You do understand that screening candidates for open positions, while part of the job description, doesn't tend to be part of the daily normal workflow, yes? Most large companies expect you to be able to screen and interview candidates as well as being able to perform your normal workload, you don't get a reduction just because your team is a member (or three) down.
There comes a certain point where scale is an issue, whether it's in the number of positions open, the number of potential candidates, or both. Once those factors hit a tipping point, the manager has a few choices. Stay late, Take work home, or get some help. The first tends to be unhealthy. The second is an extension of the first, but more likely to cause issues at home if you have a family. Which means getting some help.
On our team, this means our managers enlist the senior members of the team, which is the way we prefer it. We'd like to be able to give some feedback on the people we're going to have to work with before it's a done deal, and this has helped us avoid some bad hires. If a hiring manager is not in the position to do so, then I can't say I blame them for turning to HR for help, even if most HR departments aren't exactly stellar at screening candidates (especially in the tech world)
Don't you think the calls of an anti-monopoly breakup are a little melodramatic?
Last time I checked, there were other companies offering the same thing from the services side. Names like Cox, Charter, AT&T.
Last time I checked, there were other companies producing content. Names like ABC and CBS and Fox.
Comcast is in the unique position of being both a content delivery system, and a content generator, but it is hardly the only game in town on either side. Until we've reached a point where your only choice for delivery of services is the Comcast network, and the only source of content is that which was created by Comcast, any calls for an anti-trust breakup is a crock.
But you go on ahead and get your internet reactionary/revolutionary thing going on. And if you happen to be a Comcast customer, posting your drivel from the Comcast network, I hope you understand the irony.
Look, I'm a Comcast employee, on the operations side. I can assure you beyond the shadow of a doubt that we Ops folks do not think like this. Most of us are customers as well as employees, you think we want to be making our own service suck on purpose?
I do an awful lot of work in the realm of capacity increase and augmentation on the Comcast network. Restriction isn't what we're about. We would much rather beat our competitors by simply offering a better product.