Not only all that, traffic studies showed that where speed limits were generally ignored, it was actually SAFER to raise the speed limits because the few people that were actually following the laws were driving at much slower speeds and causing more accidents than having everyone traveling at the same speed.
This also makes sense, since it is usually not speed that causes accidents, but driver inattention and choke points. If I am driving down the road, talking on my cell phone and putting on makeup, or reading the newspaper, and traffic is stalled on the road ahead...I am far more likely to not respond in time than a driver who is giving the road conditions their full attention. At least one study reported that driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk. It is usually not the speed that kills, but the delta...70mph to 0mph, or even worse, 70mph to -70mph is far different than 25mph to 0mph.
Where speed becomes a big thing, however, is when you have pedestrians. If a pedestrian is hit at 15 mph, it has quite a bit different result than when they are hit at 30 mph. However, this can be fixed via education and limiting pedestrian access to roads (why pedestrians even think it is a good idea to walk on a freeway is beyond me.) But then again, people do a lot of stupid things. We have to get out of the mindset that we need laws to prevent people from doing stupid things, and reduce the liabilities to 3rd parties when people do these stupid things, and we'll get back to being a great nation instead of one where the only people making millions are the lawyers.
Think of it this way. If it was your right, then the judge would not be able to kick you off the jury if you told her you intended to exercise your jury nullification power. When something is your right, no one can rightfully prevent you from exercising it.
Anyone can prevent you from exercising your rights. People do it all the time, and those who are poor seem to have it done to them more than those who are rich. It is your responsibility to protect your rights, and society should strive hard to protect everyone's rights. Society needs to recognize the slippery slope they are on when they start abusing the rights of a few citizens.
People fight for their rights in court all the time, but unfortunately justice isn't completely blind and those who have money have an easier time protecting their rights than those who don't have much money.
Again, at the end of the day, a right is a right. Rights are created, and rights are destroyed.
Rights are like energy, they can neither be created nor destroyed. They always exist, so long as society exists. They can, however, be denied to an individual or a group, either by might or by law. My right to breath was not created by anyone (other than my mother and father,) nor can it be destroyed (except by God or by another human who decides his right to breath is more important than mine, and denies me of that right.)
The Constitution, or any law for that matter, codifies those rights that already exist in nature. However, there are many rights that exist which are outlawed as well...my right to use force on others is greatly limited by law, yet it still exists. Society limits those rights because society feels that one person's rights should not damage another's except in very narrow cases, which is necessary in order to keep society together. However, in some societies, the rights of a few persons far outweigh the rights of the populace. In those societies, the members of the ruling class could in fact use the right of force against you, and deprive you of your rights.
I realize IP maximalists love this type of society, where their rights trump the populace, but so long as the society remains free and democratic (something that I know IP maximalists are working hard to subvert,) your right to copyright will never trump my right to free speech, since free speech is specifically codified in the Constitution, and Copyright isn't, until you get that changed.
Last I check, intercepting and modifying someone's data is illegal.
It's only legal if you or I, members of the citizen class, do it. For corporations, members of the ruling class, it is not only legal and accepted, but expected for corporations to keep control of their precious revenue streams (god forbid you get in the way of their revenue streams...that would be punishable of death.)
If you don't believe this, take a look at the Sony Backdoor case, where if any one of us did what Sony did, we'd be in jail for 20 years to life...but they get a free pass and free advertising to boot.
If this was a case of illegal search and seizure, which it appears to be, and the officers should have known it was an illegal search and seizure, the officers involved should be sued. California law (and the 4th Amendment) only protects officers who are acting in accordance with the law. If they in fact broke the law, I hope they (the officers involved) are taken to the cleaners (since they make every police officer out there look bad.)
This is taught in Search and Seizure classes in every POST certified law enforcement academy across California. It is the responsibility of the officers to assure that the Search Warrant is valid, accurate, and correct before acting on it. If you have a search warrant which has anything that is incorrect, the search warrant is invalid and must be fixed. If the warrant says the building is a two story building, it better be a two story building! Come on...it only takes a couple minutes for the duty judge to sign a new warrant. The laziness...it burns.
That's nonsense. I can tell the difference between a 192kbit mp3 and an 320 kbit mp3.
I do not have a golden ear...but there are some songs where even I can hear the difference. Many of Pink Floyd's songs (which were not affected by the loudness war,) sound very different on 192kbit mp3 vs 320 kbit mp3. I can hear the difference in those songs (though I usually use VBR anyway, so when I use 320 VBR vs 192 VBR, the difference is not as noticeable.) Still, I can hear the difference with them, but not so much with music recorded after the 90s. Most likely because all of the music on CDs from that era are already over compressed anyway.
5) People out there who didn't know about this game and wouldn't have bought it have come across the leak, and would buy it because they realize it is worth the money. (And I didn't come across the leak, but have heard people here say it was better than Crysis, which some of us bought and didn't like, and we'll buy the new one because others say it is better than the one we did buy and didn't like.)
I don't like the DRM, but I may buy it now that others have seen it and thought it was better than Crysis (a game I bought and didn't like much.)
I don't think Lobo was confusing the two. I believe Lobo was saying that this was already common practice for Patent Holders to wait a couple years while the use of their patent becomes pervasive, and then crack down to make lots of money, and in this case Mr. Schultz was just using what was common practice in the Patent world and applying it to the Copyright world.
I personally believe that Mr. Schultz is late to the party, and Copyright Maximalists have been doing this for years. Why innovate when you can legislate and litigate? That is their motto, whether it is Copyright Maximalists or Patent Maximalists (or even Trademark Maximalists.)
Assuming Dodd takes the role, he's already proving himself to be perfect for a Hollywood job, because it makes him a blatant liar.
He is a politician. Frankly, I would have been more surprised if he had actually kept his promise. As the old adage says, "How can you tell a politician is lying? Their mouth is moving."
I have yet to meet a politician (I've met quite a few) who wasn't a two-faced liar. Sure, they will offer you the world to get elected, but then they start breaking every promise they made (though, I think in some cases they honestly made a promise through naivety they eventually couldn't keep, I think this is the exception, not the rule.) I always love hearing "we'll look into that" from a politician...that essentially means "we don't care, but we have to say something to make you feel like we do."
Knowing this, I never vote for a politician based on what they say...I always use their record of action to decide whether to vote for them or not. Not that that makes a difference though, as the last election no one I voted for was elected because a majority of those in my state listen to what the politician says and not what they do, and then they get upset when the politician gets into office and fails to do what they said.
Yeah, most of the other sites they already troll have become overloaded with smarter, better trolls, thus reducing their lulz. They have to move on to virgin territory and Techdirt has mostly industry shill trolls who are here to stifle speech, not get lulz.
No, that would be more like asking companies to prove their dealer status, or have all of their products marked "USED / SECOND HAND / NOT OFFICIAL DEALER". It isn't a big deal, rather it's a good way to keep consumers informed.
I don't know, maybe I am missing something, but when I want a new product from a dealer I can trust, I don't think ebay has ever entered my mind.
When I buy stuff off ebay, I expect they are used/second hand/not official dealer. I know I am not alone in this belief. I think the burden of proof should be the opposite, in that companies that are selling brand new merchandise, who are authorized dealers, should plaster that message all over their products on ebay, and then the company should go after those who are lying about their new/authorized dealer status.
My recollection from Torts is that if you're just a movie-goer enjoying the film, and you didn't set the fire yourself, you have no duty to warn.
And this, my friends, is exactly why I hate lawyers (not singling out AJ, just lawyers in general.) They aren't human. From birth, we all have an innate sense of duty to protect those around us...it is called the "Herd Mentality" which comes from when we were all standing around a field and a lion or some other baddie showed up for lunch. Humans, by their very nature, will warn others when they see danger, and will act accordingly. Lawyers only think of themselves, and screw everyone else, which makes them good lawyers, but bad humans. Sure, the law says you don't have a duty to warn others, but we're all trapped together on the same rock and in some cases the right thing to do is not the legal thing to do.
I had this same argument with a lawyer friend of mine, and it was at that point that I realized lawyers are from another planet. The question was asked what would I do if I saw someone's kid fall off of a boat into the water. My first reaction would be to dive in and render assistance (yes, a blue canary response.) His reaction was that he'd wave goodbye to the kid as he drowned. Heartless bastard. Of course, in reality, me jumping in probably wouldn't be the best response either (rescuers drown too.)
Someone should challenge the removal of the jurors for that.
If every juror, during the voir dire process, announced that they believed in the concept of jury nullification, the courts would have to stop removal of jurors because there wouldn't be any jurors left. In order to do that, you have to educate the jurors, using some sort of leaflet or brochure which educate jurors of their rights and responsibilities...exactly what the judge is prohibiting here.
As far as I am concerned, if judges can change the law via judicial decree...jurors should be able to do the same via jury nullification. Yet another example of politicians (in this case, judges) removing checks and balances built into the system to further their own short term greed.
One case I sat through the voir dire process on, the judge threatened to fine a juror for contempt of court, and removed the whole jury pool, because the juror announced that they believed every juror had the right to practice jury nullification. After that case, I became educated on what jury nullification meant. While I don't think I'd mention it myself during voir dire, unless pressed, I do believe in it.
No, Lucas did nothing! He just stole everyone elses IP and stuck it together in his mom's basement. He's getting a free ride on everyone else's hard work, ie.
I detect sarcasm in your tone, and I agree with that sarcasm, however, Lucas hardly did nothing. He took a bunch of movies, including Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, and melded them together into a fantasy story in space. I cannot stand copyright maximalists beliefs that any copying is wrong, but what Lucas did was copying from many works, then sorting them into a decent story in another place and time from the originals (though Flash Gordon was in the same genre, unlike the Samurai movies.) We all copy, and it is what makes our individual works better. My question to the copyright maximalists is, and has always been, where in the sand is copying wrong...can we have a definitive line in the sand where everything before that line is constructive borrowing and everything past the line is evil copying. Sure, taking one movie and copying a significant amount of dialog and action works as grounds for me, but when you take bits and pieces from a spectrum of movies, it should be counted differently.
For the record though, I don't see a problem with someone borrowing a significant portion of a work to make it better (I welcome anyone to take my work and make it better, but then again I am a firm believer in open source,) but I suspect most copyright maximalists believe that any copying which results in padding their paycheck with more money if they win is bad copying (because they are sadistic greedy bastards.)
interestingly, many public buildings where i live are actually designed to discourage you from using the elevators
Not were I live. Due to the belief that terrorists are everywhere, the public buildings near me have locked the stairwells. Actually, they probably locked the stairwells to keep the homeless people from living in them.
I like using the stairs, and were I currently work, they only have stairs (it isn't a tall building, only three floors.) But I've actually had alarms go off on me trying to use the stairs in a public building in the city before.
Ask the Sirius Cybernetics Happy Vertical People Transporters how that worked out for them....
I believe they were first up against the wall when the revolution came.
But they weren't killed because of left/right elevators, but elevators that were happy and cheerful all the time (which kinda fits into this story, in a Marvin the Paranoid Robot kinda way...)
Man, I miss Douglas Adams. He was a god among mortals.
When people have to pay for bandwidth, they are going to do everything within their power to use only what they want. That means ad blockers will become the norm, with people not wanting precious kb being wasted on advertisements. When everyone starts blocking ads, companies stop buying ads. Lots of new business models are stifled if not completely made obsolete.
And they will be more upset about the junk the ISP does too...is there any reason why an ISP isn't filtering out SMB on their networks, or any reason why they require a user to run connection software on their machines that regularly communicate back to the mothership (for support reasons, they say,) and who require said software to be installed on the customers' machine in order to handle support calls?
The ISP I use at home has reasonable limits, but if the ISP includes all of the traffic sent to your machine regardless to whether you asked for it or not, you're going to find a lot more pissed-off people upset that they are getting charged for bandwidth even when they take a month off.
When people have to pay for bandwidth, they are going to do everything within their power to use only what they want. That means ad blockers will become the norm, with people not wanting precious kb being wasted on advertisements. When everyone starts blocking ads, companies stop buying ads. Lots of new business models are stifled if not completely made obsolete.
And they will be more upset about the junk the ISP does too...is there any reason why an ISP isn't filtering out SMB on their networks, or any reason why they require a user to run connection software on their machines that regularly communicate back to the mothership (for support reasons, they say,) and who require said software to be installed on the customers' machine in order to handle support calls?
The ISP I use at home has reasonable limits, but if the ISP includes all of the traffic sent to your machine regardless to whether you asked for it or not, you're going to find a lot more pissed-off people upset that they are getting charged for bandwidth even when they take a month off.
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes Sense...
This also makes sense, since it is usually not speed that causes accidents, but driver inattention and choke points. If I am driving down the road, talking on my cell phone and putting on makeup, or reading the newspaper, and traffic is stalled on the road ahead...I am far more likely to not respond in time than a driver who is giving the road conditions their full attention. At least one study reported that driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk. It is usually not the speed that kills, but the delta...70mph to 0mph, or even worse, 70mph to -70mph is far different than 25mph to 0mph.
Where speed becomes a big thing, however, is when you have pedestrians. If a pedestrian is hit at 15 mph, it has quite a bit different result than when they are hit at 30 mph. However, this can be fixed via education and limiting pedestrian access to roads (why pedestrians even think it is a good idea to walk on a freeway is beyond me.) But then again, people do a lot of stupid things. We have to get out of the mindset that we need laws to prevent people from doing stupid things, and reduce the liabilities to 3rd parties when people do these stupid things, and we'll get back to being a great nation instead of one where the only people making millions are the lawyers.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone can prevent you from exercising your rights. People do it all the time, and those who are poor seem to have it done to them more than those who are rich. It is your responsibility to protect your rights, and society should strive hard to protect everyone's rights. Society needs to recognize the slippery slope they are on when they start abusing the rights of a few citizens.
People fight for their rights in court all the time, but unfortunately justice isn't completely blind and those who have money have an easier time protecting their rights than those who don't have much money.
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rights are like energy, they can neither be created nor destroyed. They always exist, so long as society exists. They can, however, be denied to an individual or a group, either by might or by law. My right to breath was not created by anyone (other than my mother and father,) nor can it be destroyed (except by God or by another human who decides his right to breath is more important than mine, and denies me of that right.)
The Constitution, or any law for that matter, codifies those rights that already exist in nature. However, there are many rights that exist which are outlawed as well...my right to use force on others is greatly limited by law, yet it still exists. Society limits those rights because society feels that one person's rights should not damage another's except in very narrow cases, which is necessary in order to keep society together. However, in some societies, the rights of a few persons far outweigh the rights of the populace. In those societies, the members of the ruling class could in fact use the right of force against you, and deprive you of your rights.
I realize IP maximalists love this type of society, where their rights trump the populace, but so long as the society remains free and democratic (something that I know IP maximalists are working hard to subvert,) your right to copyright will never trump my right to free speech, since free speech is specifically codified in the Constitution, and Copyright isn't, until you get that changed.
On the post: Mediacom Puts Its Own Ads On Other Websites, Including Google & Apple
Re: illegal
It's only legal if you or I, members of the citizen class, do it. For corporations, members of the ruling class, it is not only legal and accepted, but expected for corporations to keep control of their precious revenue streams (god forbid you get in the way of their revenue streams...that would be punishable of death.)
If you don't believe this, take a look at the Sony Backdoor case, where if any one of us did what Sony did, we'd be in jail for 20 years to life...but they get a free pass and free advertising to boot.
On the post: Just Because A Judge Signs A Warrant, Doesn't Make It Legal...
Re: Re: I hate these cases
If this was a case of illegal search and seizure, which it appears to be, and the officers should have known it was an illegal search and seizure, the officers involved should be sued. California law (and the 4th Amendment) only protects officers who are acting in accordance with the law. If they in fact broke the law, I hope they (the officers involved) are taken to the cleaners (since they make every police officer out there look bad.)
This is taught in Search and Seizure classes in every POST certified law enforcement academy across California. It is the responsibility of the officers to assure that the Search Warrant is valid, accurate, and correct before acting on it. If you have a search warrant which has anything that is incorrect, the search warrant is invalid and must be fixed. If the warrant says the building is a two story building, it better be a two story building! Come on...it only takes a couple minutes for the duty judge to sign a new warrant. The laziness...it burns.
On the post: Record Labels Planning Yet Another Way To Try To Get You To Rebuy Music You Already 'Bought'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not have a golden ear...but there are some songs where even I can hear the difference. Many of Pink Floyd's songs (which were not affected by the loudness war,) sound very different on 192kbit mp3 vs 320 kbit mp3. I can hear the difference in those songs (though I usually use VBR anyway, so when I use 320 VBR vs 192 VBR, the difference is not as noticeable.) Still, I can hear the difference with them, but not so much with music recorded after the 90s. Most likely because all of the music on CDs from that era are already over compressed anyway.
On the post: Record Labels Planning Yet Another Way To Try To Get You To Rebuy Music You Already 'Bought'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no 6. There is never a 6. If you put a 6 in there, you are the one who is wrong.
On the post: Crytek Manages Not To Lose Their Minds Despite Crysis 2 Leak
Re: Re:
5) People out there who didn't know about this game and wouldn't have bought it have come across the leak, and would buy it because they realize it is worth the money. (And I didn't come across the leak, but have heard people here say it was better than Crysis, which some of us bought and didn't like, and we'll buy the new one because others say it is better than the one we did buy and didn't like.)
I don't like the DRM, but I may buy it now that others have seen it and thought it was better than Crysis (a game I bought and didn't like much.)
On the post: Photographer Demanding Cash From Sites Using Palin's Official Governor Photo
Re:
I don't think Lobo was confusing the two. I believe Lobo was saying that this was already common practice for Patent Holders to wait a couple years while the use of their patent becomes pervasive, and then crack down to make lots of money, and in this case Mr. Schultz was just using what was common practice in the Patent world and applying it to the Copyright world.
I personally believe that Mr. Schultz is late to the party, and Copyright Maximalists have been doing this for years. Why innovate when you can legislate and litigate? That is their motto, whether it is Copyright Maximalists or Patent Maximalists (or even Trademark Maximalists.)
On the post: Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist
He is a politician. Frankly, I would have been more surprised if he had actually kept his promise. As the old adage says, "How can you tell a politician is lying? Their mouth is moving."
I have yet to meet a politician (I've met quite a few) who wasn't a two-faced liar. Sure, they will offer you the world to get elected, but then they start breaking every promise they made (though, I think in some cases they honestly made a promise through naivety they eventually couldn't keep, I think this is the exception, not the rule.) I always love hearing "we'll look into that" from a politician...that essentially means "we don't care, but we have to say something to make you feel like we do."
Knowing this, I never vote for a politician based on what they say...I always use their record of action to decide whether to vote for them or not. Not that that makes a difference though, as the last election no one I voted for was elected because a majority of those in my state listen to what the politician says and not what they do, and then they get upset when the politician gets into office and fails to do what they said.
On the post: 'Urban Homesteading' Trademarked, Lots Of Urban Homesteaders Told To Cease Using The Common Term
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, most of the other sites they already troll have become overloaded with smarter, better trolls, thus reducing their lulz. They have to move on to virgin territory and Techdirt has mostly industry shill trolls who are here to stifle speech, not get lulz.
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Coach Over Bogus Takedowns, Trademark Bullying
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know, maybe I am missing something, but when I want a new product from a dealer I can trust, I don't think ebay has ever entered my mind.
When I buy stuff off ebay, I expect they are used/second hand/not official dealer. I know I am not alone in this belief. I think the burden of proof should be the opposite, in that companies that are selling brand new merchandise, who are authorized dealers, should plaster that message all over their products on ebay, and then the company should go after those who are lying about their new/authorized dealer status.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this, my friends, is exactly why I hate lawyers (not singling out AJ, just lawyers in general.) They aren't human. From birth, we all have an innate sense of duty to protect those around us...it is called the "Herd Mentality" which comes from when we were all standing around a field and a lion or some other baddie showed up for lunch. Humans, by their very nature, will warn others when they see danger, and will act accordingly. Lawyers only think of themselves, and screw everyone else, which makes them good lawyers, but bad humans. Sure, the law says you don't have a duty to warn others, but we're all trapped together on the same rock and in some cases the right thing to do is not the legal thing to do.
I had this same argument with a lawyer friend of mine, and it was at that point that I realized lawyers are from another planet. The question was asked what would I do if I saw someone's kid fall off of a boat into the water. My first reaction would be to dive in and render assistance (yes, a blue canary response.) His reaction was that he'd wave goodbye to the kid as he drowned. Heartless bastard. Of course, in reality, me jumping in probably wouldn't be the best response either (rescuers drown too.)
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If every juror, during the voir dire process, announced that they believed in the concept of jury nullification, the courts would have to stop removal of jurors because there wouldn't be any jurors left. In order to do that, you have to educate the jurors, using some sort of leaflet or brochure which educate jurors of their rights and responsibilities...exactly what the judge is prohibiting here.
As far as I am concerned, if judges can change the law via judicial decree...jurors should be able to do the same via jury nullification. Yet another example of politicians (in this case, judges) removing checks and balances built into the system to further their own short term greed.
One case I sat through the voir dire process on, the judge threatened to fine a juror for contempt of court, and removed the whole jury pool, because the juror announced that they believed every juror had the right to practice jury nullification. After that case, I became educated on what jury nullification meant. While I don't think I'd mention it myself during voir dire, unless pressed, I do believe in it.
On the post: Star Wars Is A Remix
Re: Re:
I detect sarcasm in your tone, and I agree with that sarcasm, however, Lucas hardly did nothing. He took a bunch of movies, including Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, and melded them together into a fantasy story in space. I cannot stand copyright maximalists beliefs that any copying is wrong, but what Lucas did was copying from many works, then sorting them into a decent story in another place and time from the originals (though Flash Gordon was in the same genre, unlike the Samurai movies.) We all copy, and it is what makes our individual works better. My question to the copyright maximalists is, and has always been, where in the sand is copying wrong...can we have a definitive line in the sand where everything before that line is constructive borrowing and everything past the line is evil copying. Sure, taking one movie and copying a significant amount of dialog and action works as grounds for me, but when you take bits and pieces from a spectrum of movies, it should be counted differently.
For the record though, I don't see a problem with someone borrowing a significant portion of a work to make it better (I welcome anyone to take my work and make it better, but then again I am a firm believer in open source,) but I suspect most copyright maximalists believe that any copying which results in padding their paycheck with more money if they win is bad copying (because they are sadistic greedy bastards.)
On the post: Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?
Re: Re: No access
Not were I live. Due to the belief that terrorists are everywhere, the public buildings near me have locked the stairwells. Actually, they probably locked the stairwells to keep the homeless people from living in them.
I like using the stairs, and were I currently work, they only have stairs (it isn't a tall building, only three floors.) But I've actually had alarms go off on me trying to use the stairs in a public building in the city before.
On the post: Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe they were first up against the wall when the revolution came.
But they weren't killed because of left/right elevators, but elevators that were happy and cheerful all the time (which kinda fits into this story, in a Marvin the Paranoid Robot kinda way...)
Man, I miss Douglas Adams. He was a god among mortals.
On the post: Metered Bandwidth Isn't About Stopping The Bandwidth Hogs; It's About Preserving Old Media Business Models
Re: Re: Metered Billing = Death of Online Ads
On the post: Metered Bandwidth Isn't About Stopping The Bandwidth Hogs; It's About Preserving Old Media Business Models
Re: Metered Billing = Death of Online Ads
And they will be more upset about the junk the ISP does too...is there any reason why an ISP isn't filtering out SMB on their networks, or any reason why they require a user to run connection software on their machines that regularly communicate back to the mothership (for support reasons, they say,) and who require said software to be installed on the customers' machine in order to handle support calls?
The ISP I use at home has reasonable limits, but if the ISP includes all of the traffic sent to your machine regardless to whether you asked for it or not, you're going to find a lot more pissed-off people upset that they are getting charged for bandwidth even when they take a month off.
On the post: Metered Bandwidth Isn't About Stopping The Bandwidth Hogs; It's About Preserving Old Media Business Models
Re: Metered Billing = Death of Online Ads
And they will be more upset about the junk the ISP does too...is there any reason why an ISP isn't filtering out SMB on their networks, or any reason why they require a user to run connection software on their machines that regularly communicate back to the mothership (for support reasons, they say,) and who require said software to be installed on the customers' machine in order to handle support calls?
The ISP I use at home has reasonable limits, but if the ISP includes all of the traffic sent to your machine regardless to whether you asked for it or not, you're going to find a lot more pissed-off people upset that they are getting charged for bandwidth even when they take a month off.
Next >>