The real shame is that corporate managers appear to view their customers as revenue units to be squeezed without mercy. We are in an financial meltdown in this country because of the greed of the corporate executives.
While I agree that we need more customer protection, the real shame is that there are few calls for corporations to improve their ethical behavior.
There is a distinction. It is a government mandate that the analog signal expire. Companies do run "public service" announcements, the cable companies can demonstrate that they are being good citizens by informing their customers of all options. Wouldn't you feel better about your service provider if they actually respected the customer.
Using FUD to scare your customers is an absurdity. Haven't we had enough of companies greedily screwing their customers and investors so self serving managers can extract exorbitant pay. Lets restore a semblance of ethics in corporate America.
Time-Warner has been running a deceptive add that implies that you need to get cable to keep your TV working. They never mention that you could buy a converter box!!!
While, I agree that companies have a right to advertise and can present their product advantageously. However, in this case, failing to mention the alternative of buying a converter box is going over-the-edge.
Now, I wonder if Mike will get a copyright take down notice for "stealing" Time-Warner's by-line "There's tremendous confusion out there about February's required switch for broadcast TV from analog to digital." Time-Warner of course has not actually helped the consumer understand this supposed "confusion". Just buy from us, don't think.
Excellent point.
Nevertheless, there is more to the story.
First, the consumer should be able to drop the service whenever they wish without facing any prepayment penalty. If companies can change their terms of service, as they wish, so should the consumer. If the company loses money selling the laptops below cost, too bad. (note I did not use the word "subsidy").
Next, these companies attempt to extend prepayment penalties even when you don't get a piece of real physical hardware that has value. For example Sprint said that we would have to sign-up for a new two year contract just to change our phone number! We said good-by to Sprint. Later, we were then informed through a class action lawsuit that Sprint made "errors" in their billing to us and that we were entitled to a $15 refund. But guess what - surprise, surprise - we would have to sign up for a new two year contract to get the refund. Of course we did not sign up. Clearly these "contracts" are more about locking the customer in and depriving the customer of their economic freedom than they are about "recovering" costs.
An unappreciated trend is copyright law has been the ability of corporations to assume police powers. Regretfully, the court systems seem reluctant to forgo their desire to obstruct free enterprise. Artistic achievements will blossom when the RIAA is freed of the impediment of due process.
What is troubling with the network neutrality debate is that those who say that regulation would have unintended consequences seem to never suggest that private industry reign in their abusive business practice that would detract from operating in a "neutral" manner. We have already seen, on TechDirt, the unintended consequences when private companies can operate in a whimsical fashion. Regulation may have unintended consequences but so does the lack of regulation when private industry simply claims "trust us" with no guarantees as to what "trust us" really means.
If we want to avoid the unintended consequence of regulation, let's here from the ISPs and the Telcos commitments for network neutrality. Regretfully, the silence on this issue implies that the ISPs and the Telcos want the "flexibility" to operate in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Twinrova's experience points to a major problem when you are sold a product that does not work. The companies essentially refuse to refund your money. Given that situation, posting your displeasure all over the net whenever and wherever you can seems to be a reasonable course of action.
If a company is not willing to treat its customers well, why should the customers respect the company?
CNBC reports: "Shares of EA dropped more than 6 percent in after-hours trading after the company's announcement."
The Washington Post did report "The company said many older titles have been selling below expectations". Would Spore be an older title now? Maybe the outrage paid off.
Intuit, is a despicable company. Unfortunately, I am "locked" into Quicken and TurboTax. Every experience that I have with the company has left me with a bad taste. Nevertheless, I hope that those who are not locked into the company will buy something else.
"The unexpected bill was from the Australasian Performing Rights Association, an organisation she had never heard of before." So who authorizes the "Association" to protect the copyright holders???? The article doesn't say.
Does this mean that anyone can declare themselves as a bounty hunter for collecting fees on behalf of the copyright holders???? Great opportunity for self-employment!!
"The Prior Arts" writes "Triune Star owns patent 6,122,521, which covers a camera with a GPS locator in it. But it only covers infrared cameras, a limitiation that the patent examiner insisted on adding in order to grant a patent..
Again we have, I believe, a misapplication of patent law. How is linking an infrared camera to a GPS system different from a camera based on normal light?
The only difference to my knowledge is that infrared light is of a different frequency that regular light. You may need different sensors. because of the light frequency, but how you would "talk" to the GPS would seem to remain the same. So where is the innovation that would qualify it as patentable?
Clearly my post was unclear. See my response to neil immediately above this one. Giving money to the big car companies will simply be throwing it away.
My apologies, I was being sarcastic, too cryptic, and I didn't really proof read all that well. Bailing out the automakers will be bailing out a dysfunctional U.S. industry where management failed to adapt to market realities. This will hurt our ability to be innovative in the future.
Slippery slope. If it is OK to coerce ISPs block "pornography" (which is an elusive term) then it doesn't become much of a logical stretch for the ISPs to be required to block any "offending" content. Any offending content can include any content that a special interest group does not want disseminated. So who defines what "bad" content is? I suppose we could resurrect the Committee of Public Safety from the French Revolution. Of course all this filtering would be done for your protection.
"For a copyright to have any value, a lot of people have to labor to make it so, and that labor doesn't stop when the artist finishes a work, nor even when he dies. Many people apart from the creator of the work share in the income from that work, which can continue producing revenue for decades."
When stuff enters the public domain, such as Shakespeare's plays, you can still make money producing the work. In fact, without copyright, many more people would be able to produce the work, make money and share the wealth.
Copyright essentially creates a monopoly tollbooth that excludes others from making an income from that work unless they cough up the "licensing" fee.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with copyright, provided it is very limited in duration. But to keep babbling that copyright is necessary since "a lot of people have to labor to make it so, and that labor doesn't stop when the artist finishes a work, nor even when he dies." is pure bunk.
Nov. 17, 2004 article from CNN "Kmart is buying Sears, Roebuck & Co. for $11 billion in a deal that will marry two of the nation's oldest retailers that had trouble keeping up with the changes in American culture around them.
Re: Re: Re: If you thought confusion was bad before...
If you invest money on a business venture you are not guaranteed a return on that investment. If you produce a product that people want, they will buy the product if it is reasonably priced and conveys value to them.
If there are no potential customers willing to pay for your product, for whatever reason, you just made a bad business decision. Did you do your "due diligence" to determine if a market existed? The free-market is not about "guaranteeing" that your investment costs will be recovered.
Can't make money, well make it a hobby and you can still contribute your gifts to society. Psychic income, better than no-income.
On the post: Cable Companies Hold Off On Digital Conversion To Avoid Confusion (And Potential Lawsuits)
Re: Comcast's Deceptive Practices
While I agree that we need more customer protection, the real shame is that there are few calls for corporations to improve their ethical behavior.
On the post: Cable Companies Hold Off On Digital Conversion To Avoid Confusion (And Potential Lawsuits)
Re: Re: Re: Re: comcast
Using FUD to scare your customers is an absurdity. Haven't we had enough of companies greedily screwing their customers and investors so self serving managers can extract exorbitant pay. Lets restore a semblance of ethics in corporate America.
On the post: Cable Companies Hold Off On Digital Conversion To Avoid Confusion (And Potential Lawsuits)
Re: Re: comcast
While, I agree that companies have a right to advertise and can present their product advantageously. However, in this case, failing to mention the alternative of buying a converter box is going over-the-edge.
Now, I wonder if Mike will get a copyright take down notice for "stealing" Time-Warner's by-line "There's tremendous confusion out there about February's required switch for broadcast TV from analog to digital." Time-Warner of course has not actually helped the consumer understand this supposed "confusion". Just buy from us, don't think.
On the post: Subsidized Laptops With Locked In Wireless Broadband Contracts
Re: Where did people learn math?
Nevertheless, there is more to the story.
First, the consumer should be able to drop the service whenever they wish without facing any prepayment penalty. If companies can change their terms of service, as they wish, so should the consumer. If the company loses money selling the laptops below cost, too bad. (note I did not use the word "subsidy").
Next, these companies attempt to extend prepayment penalties even when you don't get a piece of real physical hardware that has value. For example Sprint said that we would have to sign-up for a new two year contract just to change our phone number! We said good-by to Sprint. Later, we were then informed through a class action lawsuit that Sprint made "errors" in their billing to us and that we were entitled to a $15 refund. But guess what - surprise, surprise - we would have to sign up for a new two year contract to get the refund. Of course we did not sign up. Clearly these "contracts" are more about locking the customer in and depriving the customer of their economic freedom than they are about "recovering" costs.
On the post: Record Labels Disobey Court Order On How Student Info Can Be Used
Our Court System is Obstructing Free Enterprise
On the post: Have The Big Internet Companies Turned Their Back On Net Neutrality?
Re: Re: Unintended Consequence - The Private Sector
On the post: Have The Big Internet Companies Turned Their Back On Net Neutrality?
Unintended Consequence - The Private Sector
If we want to avoid the unintended consequence of regulation, let's here from the ISPs and the Telcos commitments for network neutrality. Regretfully, the silence on this issue implies that the ISPs and the Telcos want the "flexibility" to operate in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
On the post: Using Amazon To Protest Products You Don't Like
Re: Re: These companies are deceptive
On the post: Using Amazon To Protest Products You Don't Like
If it Doesn't Work You Deserve a Refund
If a company is not willing to treat its customers well, why should the customers respect the company?
PS: Sprint Bad!!!
On the post: Using Amazon To Protest Products You Don't Like
These companies are deceptive
The Washington Post did report "The company said many older titles have been selling below expectations". Would Spore be an older title now? Maybe the outrage paid off.
Intuit, is a despicable company. Unfortunately, I am "locked" into Quicken and TurboTax. Every experience that I have with the company has left me with a bad taste. Nevertheless, I hope that those who are not locked into the company will buy something else.
On the post: New Zealand Hairdresser Gets Bill For Playing Music In Her Shop
Re: Create Your Own "Association"
Does this mean that anyone can declare themselves as a bounty hunter for collecting fees on behalf of the copyright holders???? Great opportunity for self-employment!!
On the post: New Zealand Hairdresser Gets Bill For Playing Music In Her Shop
Create Your Own "Association"
On the post: Patent Lawsuit So Bogus That The Judge Ordered Sanctions And Attorney's Fees Paid
Infrared Qualifies as a Patenatable concept?
Again we have, I believe, a misapplication of patent law. How is linking an infrared camera to a GPS system different from a camera based on normal light?
The only difference to my knowledge is that infrared light is of a different frequency that regular light. You may need different sensors. because of the light frequency, but how you would "talk" to the GPS would seem to remain the same. So where is the innovation that would qualify it as patentable?
On the post: Invest In Innovative Companies; Not Failing Ones
Re: Re: That's Un-American
On the post: Invest In Innovative Companies; Not Failing Ones
Re: Re: That's Un-American
On the post: Invest In Innovative Companies; Not Failing Ones
That's Un-American
Auto Bailout Deal Appears to Be Likely by End of the Day
On the post: UK ISPs Block Wikipedia Page; Cause Problem With UK Editing
Net Neutrality
On the post: Creation Does Not Equal Ownership
You Can Make Money Without Copyright
When stuff enters the public domain, such as Shakespeare's plays, you can still make money producing the work. In fact, without copyright, many more people would be able to produce the work, make money and share the wealth.
Copyright essentially creates a monopoly tollbooth that excludes others from making an income from that work unless they cough up the "licensing" fee.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with copyright, provided it is very limited in duration. But to keep babbling that copyright is necessary since "a lot of people have to labor to make it so, and that labor doesn't stop when the artist finishes a work, nor even when he dies." is pure bunk.
On the post: What's Wrong With Competition?
Re: Re: Greedy Sears...
"Kmart is buying Sears, Roebuck & Co. for $11 billion in a deal that will marry two of the nation's oldest retailers that had trouble keeping up with the changes in American culture around them.
On the post: Creation Does Not Equal Ownership
Re: Re: Re: If you thought confusion was bad before...
If there are no potential customers willing to pay for your product, for whatever reason, you just made a bad business decision. Did you do your "due diligence" to determine if a market existed? The free-market is not about "guaranteeing" that your investment costs will be recovered.
Can't make money, well make it a hobby and you can still contribute your gifts to society. Psychic income, better than no-income.
Next >>