Who said anything about free market capitalism? Most large companies in the US are not free market enterprises either; they actually work as much as they can to keep the free market OUT of their sector.
No, you're just making excuses for them, and why they should be able to pull this shit. If you're happy with their service, then you can pay for it. Don't force the rest of us to subsidize it for you.
The private sector bureaucrat's salary isn't based on number of lives saved. It's on profits made to the company. Often that comes in the form of denying coverage.
Your entire post was basically trying to say that incompetence in the private sector is not as bad as in the government sector, and that everything wrong with the private sector is the result of government. Two things which have absolutely nothing backing them up whatsoever, and have no bearing at all on the current discussion.
What if I think Comcast's service is complete and absolute shit? What if I'd rather have Amazon, or Netflix? Now, because I would like someone else, I have arbitrary restrictions placed on me (bandwidth caps). That is an additional cost imposed on all of the competitors, that is not imposed on Comcast.
No, this is breaking neutrality. They are intentionally degrading the quality of competing services by making them more expensive to use. The "limit" is once you hit your bandwidth cap.
It's simply the case that content they can store on the same network costs them nothing to transmit, and so you get it for free. It's simply passing along a cost reduction.
Then they should be forced to offer the same convenience to Netflix, Amazon, and anyone else that wishes to do so.
It boggles my mind how network neutrality supporters cannot understand this, from so many angles.
It boggles my mind that you see a company giving themselves an unfair advantage over competitors, and you're perfectly fine with it.
You cannot understand how this does not violate network neutrality.
Because it DOES violate Network Neutrality.
It's inherently a stupid argument I think to claim that you should force a company to charge equally for something right next to you vs three networks away.
Then why can't Netflix get the same benefit, and put their content in the same place?
The problem is, by not counting that bandwidth, they are incentivizing people to use and pay for their service, rather than the competition. Giving them an unfair advantage.
So, it can be argued that making a bandwidth expensive service not count towards your cap you are actually helping the other networks.
That's a pretty shitty argument. A movie is available on Netflix, Amazon, and Comcast on Demand. Knowing that only one of these isn't going to affect your data cap, which one are you most likely to go with?
The trick is, I don't buy it, and think they're full of shit. By that measure, if Netflix has a caching server inside Comcast's network, then that traffic shouldn't count against a cap either.
And you're saying that the company doesn't benefit at all from my going. If that was the case, they wouldn't have sent me in the first place. Technically, the company is paying my salary while I'm on vacation, too. Does that mean that I owe them the salmon I caught? Or does that mean that I owe them the winnings I got while in Vegas? Of course not. The situation is no different here.
This idea that everything is owed to the company is bullshit, and shows your own sense of entitlement. It's the same shit that causes people like you to think that we should be "grateful" that we have jobs. No we shouldn't; the company needs us as much or even more than we need them.
In most situations, those who value the ticket the most should be the ones able to consume it.
And you're assuming that money is the only way to put value on such things. It's not. As you said, there are people willing to camp out for tickets. Are you saying they don't put enough value on things? Or that they put less value than someone willing to pay the extorted price that scalpers charge?
Scalpers have absolutely no place in an efficient economy. They only serve as parasites, driving the price up for everyone else.
You're an idiot if you think that tickets for Google I/O is supposed to be about "making money". If that was the case, then they wouldn't have done the giveaways that they have in past years.
You MBA fuckwads need to realize that not everything should be done for a profit, and when a company does do something not for profit, you shouldn't be chastising them, saying they could've sold the tickets for more.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about free market capitalism? Most large companies in the US are not free market enterprises either; they actually work as much as they can to keep the free market OUT of their sector.
No, you're just making excuses for them, and why they should be able to pull this shit. If you're happy with their service, then you can pay for it. Don't force the rest of us to subsidize it for you.
Do the Chinese regularly shake hands as a part of their culture, though?
What is "batshit crazy" today may not have been 10, 15, 20, or 30 years ago.
The private sector bureaucrat's salary isn't based on number of lives saved. It's on profits made to the company. Often that comes in the form of denying coverage.
Which just about every Universal Health Care system does. The US does not, unless you're able to pay with cash.
Far better than the Death Panels of the insurance industry.
You clearly have not worked in a large company before. The exact same thing happens there.
Your entire post was basically trying to say that incompetence in the private sector is not as bad as in the government sector, and that everything wrong with the private sector is the result of government. Two things which have absolutely nothing backing them up whatsoever, and have no bearing at all on the current discussion.
What if I think Comcast's service is complete and absolute shit? What if I'd rather have Amazon, or Netflix? Now, because I would like someone else, I have arbitrary restrictions placed on me (bandwidth caps). That is an additional cost imposed on all of the competitors, that is not imposed on Comcast.
A company serving their own service over their own lines is nothing to freak out about.
It is when they're giving themselves an unfair advantage over other competitors to that service.
No, this is breaking neutrality. They are intentionally degrading the quality of competing services by making them more expensive to use. The "limit" is once you hit your bandwidth cap.
It's simply the case that content they can store on the same network costs them nothing to transmit, and so you get it for free. It's simply passing along a cost reduction.
Then they should be forced to offer the same convenience to Netflix, Amazon, and anyone else that wishes to do so.
It boggles my mind how network neutrality supporters cannot understand this, from so many angles.
It boggles my mind that you see a company giving themselves an unfair advantage over competitors, and you're perfectly fine with it.
You cannot understand how this does not violate network neutrality.
Because it DOES violate Network Neutrality.
It's inherently a stupid argument I think to claim that you should force a company to charge equally for something right next to you vs three networks away.
Then why can't Netflix get the same benefit, and put their content in the same place?
The problem is, by not counting that bandwidth, they are incentivizing people to use and pay for their service, rather than the competition. Giving them an unfair advantage.
And who gets to use that "internal bandwidth"? Oh yeah, just Comcast.
This IS a net neutrality issue, as Comcast is intentionally degrading the quality of the competition to drive people to their service.
But at what point does providing customers with superior service become an abuse of net neutrality?
When their "superior service" is only achieved by degrading the quality of competing services. Which is exactly what's happening here.
So, it can be argued that making a bandwidth expensive service not count towards your cap you are actually helping the other networks.
That's a pretty shitty argument. A movie is available on Netflix, Amazon, and Comcast on Demand. Knowing that only one of these isn't going to affect your data cap, which one are you most likely to go with?
The trick is, I don't buy it, and think they're full of shit. By that measure, if Netflix has a caching server inside Comcast's network, then that traffic shouldn't count against a cap either.
If you want to connect toronto to anything else though that's where costs start to rise.
No more than any other similar sized city in the world.
Yet, by their example, it shouldn't. The traffic doesn't leave the Comcast network, so it shouldn't be billed.
This is them trying to give their shitty service an unfair advantage. And I hope they get fucked hard for it.
And you're saying that the company doesn't benefit at all from my going. If that was the case, they wouldn't have sent me in the first place. Technically, the company is paying my salary while I'm on vacation, too. Does that mean that I owe them the salmon I caught? Or does that mean that I owe them the winnings I got while in Vegas? Of course not. The situation is no different here.
This idea that everything is owed to the company is bullshit, and shows your own sense of entitlement. It's the same shit that causes people like you to think that we should be "grateful" that we have jobs. No we shouldn't; the company needs us as much or even more than we need them.
Scalping provides a value
NO IT DOES NOT.
In most situations, those who value the ticket the most should be the ones able to consume it.
And you're assuming that money is the only way to put value on such things. It's not. As you said, there are people willing to camp out for tickets. Are you saying they don't put enough value on things? Or that they put less value than someone willing to pay the extorted price that scalpers charge?
Scalpers have absolutely no place in an efficient economy. They only serve as parasites, driving the price up for everyone else.
No, it wouldn't. As I said, now only the rich get to go. That isn't a better solution. In fact, it's the exact same situation we have now.
You're an idiot if you think that tickets for Google I/O is supposed to be about "making money". If that was the case, then they wouldn't have done the giveaways that they have in past years.
You MBA fuckwads need to realize that not everything should be done for a profit, and when a company does do something not for profit, you shouldn't be chastising them, saying they could've sold the tickets for more.
Except these scalpers are not selling the tickets for their "true" value. They're selling them for an inflated price. That definitely is Wrong.
No. This is not a "win". Scalpers are costing people money, plain and simple.