As I said, stuffing of any sort of bad, bad, bad... there is nothing that can be said to make it good or acceptable.
However, this is proof of course that there is scrutiny of these companies, and it's not from the FCC. This has been going on while Wheeler fiddled. You have to think that the FCC saw some complaints on the issue.
$73 million (estimated) at $5 a month means 14,600,000 "months" charged over 5 years, so an average of 1,216,666 months per year, or about 102,000 customers each month over that 5 year period.
According to 2016 numbers, Comcast has circa 23 million cable and a similar number of internet customers (with plenty of overlap) and 11 million phone customers. Allowing for massive overlap between the three, you are still looking at least 25 million unique customers.
So if Comcast "routinely signed customers up" for this program, then they are as bad at doing that as anything else, as they only got around to signing up 0.4% of their customer base.
Now, let's make it clear (before the trolls dive in): Stuffing is bad, naughty, and they should be forced to refund the customers at least double what they took. However, for what is being pushed as a widespread fraud... Comcast truly sucked at being criminal!
"To begin with, copyright isn't just about "commercial" use"
Understood. My point was only that on Facebook, companies sometimes use copyright images to promote themselves. That would be a clear violation with few exceptions.
However, a user posting up an image and making a funny comment would likely fall under fair use. A copyright holder may report it anyway, especially if they are using a form of automated spotting. This would account for Facebook rejecting more than other sites might do.
So commercial use in this case in my mind was specifically related to companies using images on their facebook pages to promote themselves.
The internet has problems, because it was created by people who had full and complete truth with each other and never considered for a second any bad or evil intentions could be brought to bear.
Email is a perfect example. Great protocol, until you realize that it has no checks or balances in it. You can entirely, 100% face the entire header of an email, claim to be from where you are not, and entirely falsify the email. The basic email protocol is built like that.
Network routing is pretty much the same. Announce something is yours, and well, it's yours. No checks or balances, and if your announcement gets out far enough, traffic will start to route to you even if it's not true - until the original source re-announces and knocks your announcement off.
It's that part that makes the internet "self healing", but it also makes it "self harming".
The Russians are particular good at the game. You can be sure they have also calculated exactly how many undersea cables they have to cut in order to disconnect the US from everyone else.
The whole discussion doesn't start at the patch, it starts at the warped concept that you shouldn't be able to easily replace a battery. It's a form of planned obsolescence. They figure the battery is good for maybe 3 years, and at that point the phone will be just out of date enough that the cost of getting an Apple monkey to replace the battery will be too high compared to putting just a few more dollars on the line for the latest and greatest.
Other companies have followed suit. In the quest for a reasonably waterproof phone and tight packaging, Samsung has done the same. Backfired a bit with the Note 7, but they have gone down that route. I recently replaced the battery in my S7 Edge. It's a job, let me tell you!
Apple has their buyers on a 2 to 3 year cycle. They work hard to assure their products don't fail, but clearly they are not against pushing a bit to make them a little less useful.
When it comes to copyright, Facebook posts do stand in a very interesting spot. In most cases, when someone posts an image or a short video clip, they do so with a comment, a review, or use the image to explain a larger concept. Most of it (at the users level) is done without commercial intent. As a result, there is plenty of wiggle room to claim fair use.
There are also a lot of companies posting on Facebook these days, a lot of commercial use. My feeling is that if Facebook had broken it out in such a manner, the numbers would show that most of the removals are related to commercial use (example, a news site using a viral video without permission) rather than you or I posting a picture without permission.
"The ninth Facebook transparency report also showed that government requests for information about users increased 21 percent worldwide compared with the second half of 2016, from 64,279 to 78,890."
The numbers look pretty big, until you consider a few things.
it's worldwide.
Facebook has a billion active users, and over 2 billion total user accounts.
So 0.0039445% of all user accounts, or 0.007889% of all active accounts - worldwide. 7 in 100,000.
Those are shockingly low numbers, when you consider that worldwide would include places that have significantly less personal freedoms than the US, places that require nothing more than the dictator or king getting upset because you said something naughty about him.
When you break it down, the US for that period was 32,000 or so, and except for a small percentage (1% or less) all were with valid search warrant, subpoena, or court order. In the US, due process rules, and Facebook has the numbers to prove it.
What they aren't pointing out to you is that the increases in the US are almost exclusively in the search warrant and subpoena areas. It's taken a few years for the legal system to catch up, but social media is as good a place as any to find things out about someone, who their friends are, who they chat with, where they have been... it seems like lawyers doing the right thing and moving through the courts with warrants to obtain the information.
Facebook proves everything is working fine. Congrats to the winners!
The argument companies like Uber make is that they only provide the technology. Yet, even from a cursory view, you can see that the control the entire process. They deal with riders, they deal with the drivers, they collect the money, they pay the money. They decide how much the ride will be.
A technology company would create software / hardware / firmware to do this stuff, and would license it to others to operate a taxi or transport company. They might even do some of it in the SaaS model. But even in that situation, they would not have any control over how much, where, when, and who. They would blindly provide the technology.
Uber is, without a doubt, a transport / taxi company.
Uber trying to stay as a technology company isn't about purity or trying to stick in a narrow box, rather it's about not wanting any real world responsibilities. The entire premise behind an Uber or an AirBNB is that they get to do all the main deciding and collecting money, and they don't want to have any involvement in actually providing the service.
Yet, they decide all of the parameters of the service, they decide who can and cannot provide the service, and they decide who will receive the service and at what price.
Uber picked all the clean and safe jobs, all the ones that involve handling and holding money, and all the ones related to deciding everything in the product (taxi service). Yet, they want to stand and say "we aren't a taxi service".
I don't think the public calls Uber and says "we want to rent your technology to go downtown". They want a taxi.
Apps (and the background processing) are tools, a means to an end. They are not the end.
Even if there are no actual taxis in your area (ie you are very rural, example), you may find that the state or country has laws in regards to "cars for hire" or taxis.
It's actually one of the issues that self driving cars face as well. They will have to conform to current regulation or new regulation will have to be written to carry them. With a few different models possible (taxi, shared taxi, bus mode (fixed route), or interstate travel), there may need to be new ways to look at them.
Paul, I don't run away from you, I am laughing too hard to type a reasonable response!
Seriously!
"nowhere does the EU state that Uber are not a technology company"
By stating, that, I know that you entirely missed the point of it all (and what the court said). The idea is that the technology isn't what they do, it's a tool (a good one, it seems) to dispatch taxis, collect money, and basically replace the phone, radio, cash process of old.
But what the court says is that while they may USE technology to accomplish their service, the reality is their service is a transportation service, and subject to the rules of being a transportation service.
So they are a company with plenty of technology - but that technology is to run their taxi business.
Please understand, I am not saying they aren't a company that creates technology or uses technology. Many companies used technology. s Wal-Mart a technology company or a retailer? It has some of the best technology for brick and mortar retail in the world, honed over a very, very long time. But they are a retailer using technology.
Uber is a transport company. They use technology to do it, but the technology angle doesn't make them exempt from the real world of what they actually do for money (put riders in cars, collect the money, and charge a heft fee for doing it).
So no, I don't run away from your bully boy tactics. But damn, you got me laughing so hard I can't hardly write stuff without first looking at something more serious, like a circus clown or a Family Guy episode.
"Are you honestly saying that the only difference between Uber and a "traditional" taxi company is that they replaced the radios with an app? Please, tell me you're not actually that ignorant of the subject and you're just pretending to be an idiot."
Incredibly hard to have a discussion about anything with you.
All I can say is I am not the only one who figured it out. Other posters here have figured it out, and most importantly, the EU court figured it out.
I will let you live in ignorance! Merry Christmas!
The very definition of transporting passengers for hire is taxi, limo, livery service, or "private car service". They can't be a bus or a heavy hauling company, nor an airline or a train service.
"Every time someone uses their app! Their entire platform consists of technology. Is this really complicated for you, or are you now insisting software doesn't exist if it's not sold to someone else?"
Fundamentally, you are just plain wrong on this one.
Replace "app" with "phone and radios" and you arrive at the same thing, a TAXI company.
Uber makes absolutely zero dollars off of their app. 100% of their income is in arranging rides collecting money, and being the middle man (ie dispatcher) for a global taxi company.
In this situation, the company that makes the radios or makes the phones are a technology company. The company that uses that equipment to match riders with drivers is called a taxi company.
Yes, and wearing flame retardant clothing and an insulation suit means you are protected against fire. it doesn't mean you can burn buildings down and stand in them to prove it.
The defense notion is silly. If you think there is going to be a riot and you are likely to get injured, why go?
Normal every day walking down the street shouldn't need protective gear. Going to a riot with intent to film it and get famous on YouFaceGram... well yeah.
Give it another shot, and try to miss the point again. It's funny when you do that!
They wore protective clothing to (a) make it harder to identify them, and (b) to protect them from tear gas and anything thrown by others, to protect against police batons, etc. They went there ready for a fight.
Oh, and if there wasn't one, they seemed also prepared to create it.
At the very least, they were prepared to protect themselves because they knew what was going to happen. They wanted it to happen, because without it, the video would have been useless. Reporting on peaceful protests doesn't get you views on YouFaceGram.
I said that dressing in a manner that made it clear they were looking for a fight and looking not to be identified was an issue. Padding, dark clothing, gas masks or ski goggles...
Like I said, I guess it's okay to do whatever you like as long as your record it and call it "news".
It wasn't a discussion. It was a court case. The decision is binding to the EU and strikes to the very fundamentals of their business. (and no, it's not about being smug).
Uber (and many other "gig economy") companies have tried to avoid responsibilities by saying they are only a technology company. That excuse was trotted out every time so they could getout of things like minimum wage, employee benefits, insurance, and pretty much everything else. Yet, Uber controls the business. They deal with the customers, they collect the money, they set the prices, they decide who does and does not get a given job. I could go on, but I am sure even you get the point.
"people have to discuss how to adapt to address the new paradigms"
I almost giggled when I read this. I think you have been in one too many bros-meetings to trot this out.
Uber didn't want to change the rules a little, they didn't want to shift things a bit to one side. They didn't want to provide their ride hailing service to existing taxi companies. They wanted to destroy the markets by ignoring the laws, rules, and regulations that are in place at the local, state, provincial, and federal levels. Their excuse, more often than not, is the above mentioned "we are just a technology company".
It hasn't worked out very well. Uber is still burning 2 billion a year in cash trying to fight a million of the same battles. This EU decision is for them a total disaster, because it leaves them absolutely no legal leg to stand on anywhere in the EU.
On the post: Comcast Busted For Signing People Up For Services They Didn't Want, Never Asked For
Re: Re:
However, this is proof of course that there is scrutiny of these companies, and it's not from the FCC. This has been going on while Wheeler fiddled. You have to think that the FCC saw some complaints on the issue.
On the post: Comcast Busted For Signing People Up For Services They Didn't Want, Never Asked For
$73 million (estimated) at $5 a month means 14,600,000 "months" charged over 5 years, so an average of 1,216,666 months per year, or about 102,000 customers each month over that 5 year period.
According to 2016 numbers, Comcast has circa 23 million cable and a similar number of internet customers (with plenty of overlap) and 11 million phone customers. Allowing for massive overlap between the three, you are still looking at least 25 million unique customers.
So if Comcast "routinely signed customers up" for this program, then they are as bad at doing that as anything else, as they only got around to signing up 0.4% of their customer base.
Now, let's make it clear (before the trolls dive in): Stuffing is bad, naughty, and they should be forced to refund the customers at least double what they took. However, for what is being pushed as a widespread fraud... Comcast truly sucked at being criminal!
On the post: Months Later, And People Are Still Discovering Their Dead Loved Ones Were Used To Support Killing Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Someone played a naughty trick. Got it. Noted. Move on.
We know the story. What's next?
On the post: Facebook Transparency Report: Lots Of Government Surveillance, Bad Copyright Takedown Requests
Re: Re: Re: Positional Play
Understood. My point was only that on Facebook, companies sometimes use copyright images to promote themselves. That would be a clear violation with few exceptions.
However, a user posting up an image and making a funny comment would likely fall under fair use. A copyright holder may report it anyway, especially if they are using a form of automated spotting. This would account for Facebook rejecting more than other sites might do.
So commercial use in this case in my mind was specifically related to companies using images on their facebook pages to promote themselves.
On the post: British Military Chief Warns Russia Could Cut NATO's Internet Connections, As Traffic For World's Top Sites Is Mysteriously Routed Via...Russia
Email is a perfect example. Great protocol, until you realize that it has no checks or balances in it. You can entirely, 100% face the entire header of an email, claim to be from where you are not, and entirely falsify the email. The basic email protocol is built like that.
Network routing is pretty much the same. Announce something is yours, and well, it's yours. No checks or balances, and if your announcement gets out far enough, traffic will start to route to you even if it's not true - until the original source re-announces and knocks your announcement off.
It's that part that makes the internet "self healing", but it also makes it "self harming".
The Russians are particular good at the game. You can be sure they have also calculated exactly how many undersea cables they have to cut in order to disconnect the US from everyone else.
On the post: Apple Facing A Bunch Of Lawsuits After Admitting It Slows Down Older Devices, But Insisting It's For A Good Reason
Re: How hard was that?
Other companies have followed suit. In the quest for a reasonably waterproof phone and tight packaging, Samsung has done the same. Backfired a bit with the Note 7, but they have gone down that route. I recently replaced the battery in my S7 Edge. It's a job, let me tell you!
Apple has their buyers on a 2 to 3 year cycle. They work hard to assure their products don't fail, but clearly they are not against pushing a bit to make them a little less useful.
On the post: Facebook Transparency Report: Lots Of Government Surveillance, Bad Copyright Takedown Requests
Positional Play
There are also a lot of companies posting on Facebook these days, a lot of commercial use. My feeling is that if Facebook had broken it out in such a manner, the numbers would show that most of the removals are related to commercial use (example, a news site using a viral video without permission) rather than you or I posting a picture without permission.
"The ninth Facebook transparency report also showed that government requests for information about users increased 21 percent worldwide compared with the second half of 2016, from 64,279 to 78,890."
The numbers look pretty big, until you consider a few things.
it's worldwide.
Facebook has a billion active users, and over 2 billion total user accounts.
So 0.0039445% of all user accounts, or 0.007889% of all active accounts - worldwide. 7 in 100,000.
Those are shockingly low numbers, when you consider that worldwide would include places that have significantly less personal freedoms than the US, places that require nothing more than the dictator or king getting upset because you said something naughty about him.
When you break it down, the US for that period was 32,000 or so, and except for a small percentage (1% or less) all were with valid search warrant, subpoena, or court order. In the US, due process rules, and Facebook has the numbers to prove it.
What they aren't pointing out to you is that the increases in the US are almost exclusively in the search warrant and subpoena areas. It's taken a few years for the legal system to catch up, but social media is as good a place as any to find things out about someone, who their friends are, who they chat with, where they have been... it seems like lawyers doing the right thing and moving through the courts with warrants to obtain the information.
Facebook proves everything is working fine. Congrats to the winners!
On the post: Months Later, And People Are Still Discovering Their Dead Loved Ones Were Used To Support Killing Net Neutrality
Karl, we get it, heard it, over and over again. Someone played a naughty trick. Got it.
Noted.
Move on.
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [technology company]
The argument companies like Uber make is that they only provide the technology. Yet, even from a cursory view, you can see that the control the entire process. They deal with riders, they deal with the drivers, they collect the money, they pay the money. They decide how much the ride will be.
A technology company would create software / hardware / firmware to do this stuff, and would license it to others to operate a taxi or transport company. They might even do some of it in the SaaS model. But even in that situation, they would not have any control over how much, where, when, and who. They would blindly provide the technology.
Uber is, without a doubt, a transport / taxi company.
Uber trying to stay as a technology company isn't about purity or trying to stick in a narrow box, rather it's about not wanting any real world responsibilities. The entire premise behind an Uber or an AirBNB is that they get to do all the main deciding and collecting money, and they don't want to have any involvement in actually providing the service.
Yet, they decide all of the parameters of the service, they decide who can and cannot provide the service, and they decide who will receive the service and at what price.
Uber picked all the clean and safe jobs, all the ones that involve handling and holding money, and all the ones related to deciding everything in the product (taxi service). Yet, they want to stand and say "we aren't a taxi service".
I don't think the public calls Uber and says "we want to rent your technology to go downtown". They want a taxi.
Apps (and the background processing) are tools, a means to an end. They are not the end.
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
Re: Re: Re: Re: NOT a taxi
It's actually one of the issues that self driving cars face as well. They will have to conform to current regulation or new regulation will have to be written to carry them. With a few different models possible (taxi, shared taxi, bus mode (fixed route), or interstate travel), there may need to be new ways to look at them.
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously!
"nowhere does the EU state that Uber are not a technology company"
By stating, that, I know that you entirely missed the point of it all (and what the court said). The idea is that the technology isn't what they do, it's a tool (a good one, it seems) to dispatch taxis, collect money, and basically replace the phone, radio, cash process of old.
But what the court says is that while they may USE technology to accomplish their service, the reality is their service is a transportation service, and subject to the rules of being a transportation service.
So they are a company with plenty of technology - but that technology is to run their taxi business.
Please understand, I am not saying they aren't a company that creates technology or uses technology. Many companies used technology. s Wal-Mart a technology company or a retailer? It has some of the best technology for brick and mortar retail in the world, honed over a very, very long time. But they are a retailer using technology.
Uber is a transport company. They use technology to do it, but the technology angle doesn't make them exempt from the real world of what they actually do for money (put riders in cars, collect the money, and charge a heft fee for doing it).
So no, I don't run away from your bully boy tactics. But damn, you got me laughing so hard I can't hardly write stuff without first looking at something more serious, like a circus clown or a Family Guy episode.
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Incredibly hard to have a discussion about anything with you.
All I can say is I am not the only one who figured it out. Other posters here have figured it out, and most importantly, the EU court figured it out.
I will let you live in ignorance! Merry Christmas!
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
Re: Re: NOT a taxi
The court says they are a transportation company.
The very definition of transporting passengers for hire is taxi, limo, livery service, or "private car service". They can't be a bus or a heavy hauling company, nor an airline or a train service.
It doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room.
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fundamentally, you are just plain wrong on this one.
Replace "app" with "phone and radios" and you arrive at the same thing, a TAXI company.
Uber makes absolutely zero dollars off of their app. 100% of their income is in arranging rides collecting money, and being the middle man (ie dispatcher) for a global taxi company.
In this situation, the company that makes the radios or makes the phones are a technology company. The company that uses that equipment to match riders with drivers is called a taxi company.
On the post: Good News: Trump Protestors Accused Of 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment' Acquitted
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The defense notion is silly. If you think there is going to be a riot and you are likely to get injured, why go?
Normal every day walking down the street shouldn't need protective gear. Going to a riot with intent to film it and get famous on YouFaceGram... well yeah.
Give it another shot, and try to miss the point again. It's funny when you do that!
On the post: Good News: Trump Protestors Accused Of 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment' Acquitted
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and if there wasn't one, they seemed also prepared to create it.
At the very least, they were prepared to protect themselves because they knew what was going to happen. They wanted it to happen, because without it, the video would have been useless. Reporting on peaceful protests doesn't get you views on YouFaceGram.
On the post: Facebook's Collection And Use Of Data From Third-Party Sources Is 'Abusive', Says Germany's Competition Authority
Re: Re: Re:
Want to rent a property only to white people? Use facebook ads to reach only white people over 30 in your area!
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Good News: Trump Protestors Accused Of 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment' Acquitted
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said that dressing in a manner that made it clear they were looking for a fight and looking not to be identified was an issue. Padding, dark clothing, gas masks or ski goggles...
Like I said, I guess it's okay to do whatever you like as long as your record it and call it "news".
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
Re: Re:
"it's a discussion that needed to be had."
It wasn't a discussion. It was a court case. The decision is binding to the EU and strikes to the very fundamentals of their business. (and no, it's not about being smug).
Uber (and many other "gig economy") companies have tried to avoid responsibilities by saying they are only a technology company. That excuse was trotted out every time so they could getout of things like minimum wage, employee benefits, insurance, and pretty much everything else. Yet, Uber controls the business. They deal with the customers, they collect the money, they set the prices, they decide who does and does not get a given job. I could go on, but I am sure even you get the point.
"people have to discuss how to adapt to address the new paradigms"
I almost giggled when I read this. I think you have been in one too many bros-meetings to trot this out.
Uber didn't want to change the rules a little, they didn't want to shift things a bit to one side. They didn't want to provide their ride hailing service to existing taxi companies. They wanted to destroy the markets by ignoring the laws, rules, and regulations that are in place at the local, state, provincial, and federal levels. Their excuse, more often than not, is the above mentioned "we are just a technology company".
It hasn't worked out very well. Uber is still burning 2 billion a year in cash trying to fight a million of the same battles. This EU decision is for them a total disaster, because it leaves them absolutely no legal leg to stand on anywhere in the EU.
https://venturebeat.com/2017/08/23/uber-is-still-burning-cash-at-a-rate-of-2-billion-a-year/
So yeah, you can shift your paradigm all you like. They can do it if they like too, provided they operate legally as a taxi company to start with.
Next >>