What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
54 Comments
- varun1s, on 04/24/2009, -2/+48Internet service has become as close to utility now than ever before. It's time for municipalities to start laying down their own fiber (thru either taxes or bonds) and start providing it at utility rate margins.
See North Carolina's GreenLight, for example. - smacksaw, on 04/25/2009, -0/+29I'm not a lawyer, but I'll play one here on Digg: Small claims court
Ok, a few concepts. We know that we cannot contractually agree to something illegal. We can't sign a contract to put a hit out on someone. You can't agree to something illegal. Also, you can't waive your rights in a contract to things that are forbidden under law. Any 1st-year law student can pick apart most TOS' as they are often illegal.
Also, companies know their TOS are total garbage. They just want to scare you. They know it cannot be enforced.
If you get cut off for violating the TOS, sue them in small claims court. Why? Because they will settle. Why will they settle? Because they don't want a legal test of their TOS because it opens it up for scrutiny. They can make a bad TOS, but until it's been challenged in a court of law, they can get away with it.
If your ISP cuts you off for using too much internet, but won't tell you how much that is, sue them in small claims court for damages. They won't waste the money on a lawyer and they won't expose their TOS to being picked apart since it's clearly ambiguous and unenforceable. - smacksaw, on 04/25/2009, -2/+22Your analogy is like saying that there are not enough roads to accommodate all of the cars out there, so the speed limit should be lowered to a mystery number that the police will randomly enforce but not explain.
If you want good internet, encourage your ISP to invest in upgrades. Your internet doesn't suck because people are using it. That's what your internet is for, genius. Your internet sucks because your ISP is overselling their capacity. It sucks because it's like the airline industry overbooking flights. Your solution is that people should fly less. The solution is that they add more seats or don't overbook.
Let's get real here: you are logic-impaired. - deculture, on 04/24/2009, -2/+16Did you even read the article or the example it gave?
- pinserz, on 04/26/2009, -0/+13Bell Canada is doing the same with us Canadians. Its like we're taking a step backwards in advancement.
- nyxerebos, on 04/26/2009, -0/+11Reasonable as metered billing sounds to me, ISPs don't really want it. This is because if you charge a fair price per GB, most of your customers will pay less than they do now. I'd be surprised if my grandmother's email was more than a MB per month. Even if they charge one dollar per GB (ie, hideously milking the public) they'd rather she paid her flat $10 per month than the one cent of bandwidth she used. Metered billing as described by ISPs is not something they want for most of their customers, but a vaguely reasonable-sounding rationalization to screw heavy users, avoid providing what they advertise and "maximize shareholder value".
- DJRobX, on 04/26/2009, -1/+11Why? So TW can say the "average user" uses even less bandwidth than the pathetic allowances they're trying to foist upon their customers now?
Admittedly, I'm not a fan of torrents either. But it's clear that should consumption based billing go into effect, moderate users are going to get screwed over when average use statistics are calculated including the large chunk of less tech savvy people who do little more than surf and check their email. So people better start utilizing their connections.
Time Warner wants to subject standard Road Runner customers to a 20GB cap. Really Time Warner? That's the best you can do? - AmazingSteve, on 04/25/2009, -2/+11And another rube buys the Telco's ***** hook, line and sinker. Hey genius, there's a lot of things ***** with your bandwidth and bittorrent jockey across the hall isn't really one of them. ***** people should have to pass a basic knowledge test before they can use the web.
- smacksaw, on 04/26/2009, -0/+9Actually, you'd be surprised. It's quite the opposite. Considering how much it costs to dispatch a lawyer they would rather just settle than spend the money. It's not personal with them, it's all about the numbers.
- Suricou, on 04/26/2009, -0/+9In much of the US, there is a natural monopoly on broadband: There is but one network, one operator, and it's far too expensive to lay the cables for a second. The reason it's not working is that they don't have the proper legislation, and so they are doing exactly what an poorly-regulated natural monopoly should be expected to do: Raising price as high as the market will bear while paying as little as possible to provide their service. Without competition, no reason to do otherwise.
- Blue_Eon, on 04/26/2009, -0/+8It has nothing to do with how much we're using. We're not running out of bandwidth any time soon and they know that.
It's purely about profit and trying to stamp out online video. - Impact009, on 04/26/2009, -0/+7Even the cheapest plan proposed by Time Warner Cable was crap. $29.95 a month for 5 GB? Your grandmother is going to use nowhere near that amount. It's like paying for those extra 500 minutes on your mobile plan that you never use.
- smacksaw, on 04/26/2009, -0/+7That's the PR battle right there, though. If they're beating up the little guy with the corporate law machine, when the word gets out about that? Watch out.
Besides, what exactly are they going to counter-sue you for? And if they did, you get the gift of discovery, meaning you can subpoena documents they want kept private to not only hide their lies and misdeeds, but also to protect their competitive interests.
It gets exponentially worse for them. - Azriel7, on 04/26/2009, -3/+10You still believe that? This is about stopping online competition from hulu/youtube/itunes...etc, this has NOTHING to do with torrents except how it affects their cable tv business. Is it a surprise that this came around right when the legal online alternatives to torrents started to finally catch on?
- smacksaw, on 04/26/2009, -0/+6@Yez70
They have to send some sort of representation. - inactive, on 04/26/2009, -1/+6Telco A might not want to be tested in court, but I assure you they'll have lawyers at the ready - always.
- bonerfide, on 04/26/2009, -0/+5So they can charge us like cellphone plans?
I remember running up a large phone bill talking to my friend in another state using my landline.
Is that what we want to happen to the interent? - bonerfide, on 04/26/2009, -0/+5See other story where user downloads a movie over his cell phone and gets charged $62,000.
Is this what we want for the internet? - inactive, on 04/26/2009, -3/+7Why do those legs have dots on them?
- disparue, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4Or a step forward in profitability.
- FireStalker3150, on 04/26/2009, -1/+5:( i'm Capped (Australian ISP's are ***** ***** when it comes to data plans and pricing mostly due to telstra's monopoly on telecommunications.)
- sathias, on 04/26/2009, -1/+5Is that really what you want? Utilities generally have charges based on how much of their service you use.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4It costs TWC two cents per gigabyte in bandwidth costs. TWO CENTS. Think about the margins they are making when it turns out the 2/3's of all customers use 3 gb or less per month and all other costs are fixed the same per customer.
- varun1s, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4@sodoh: Maybe you don't know but torrents don't suck every single bit from the network. They only suck in as many bits as the file you choose to download.
Torrent is just a medium of file transfer. Torrents help the little guy who wants to share something (documentary, software, etc) because now he doesn't have to buy even 10% as much bandwidth as before.
So don't fall for the propaganda you hear in news, aka - "OMG bittorrent". They are big corps trying to belittle any method that helps their new competition - the little guy. - HonoredMule, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4If there were some semblance of sanity in the pricing to begin with, usage based costs would be much more reasonable, to the point that even using your connection to full capacity 24/7 wouldn't incur unmanageable costs. Then, specifically unlimited plans (like the ones they once pretended we had) could be had at feasible rates as well, satisfying us who really fear that factor of variability or recognize a threat in that uncertainty.
If you look at other services offered in 'utility format', the price is generally very low for a small amount, and the per-unit cost drops with volume, in recognition of how markets and production scales. In contrast, ISPs try to charge through the roof for the n'th GB of data you consume, because as a non-utility service, they have a more vested interest in limiting capacity and maintaining high cost than actually scaling to the market. - Yez70, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4I thought lawyers were forbidden in small claims courts.
- vagabond45, on 04/26/2009, -0/+3I'm in an area where TimeWarner wants to try this. As soon as they do, I will be disconnecting from EVERYTHING I have from them. I already downgraded my cable and am considering shutting it off completely.
- vagabond45, on 04/26/2009, -0/+3AND a step for more control
- inactive, on 04/26/2009, -1/+3Uggg. It's a vagina with hand cannons beside it.
- inactive, on 04/26/2009, -2/+4Well... Isn't that fair?
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 04/27/2009, -0/+2But...NONE of that has anything to do with how much bandwidth any given customer uses versus any other one.
Their entire argument for the caps is that some people use a ton of bandwidth and some do not, but NONE of the things you mentioned vary in hard or soft costs based on USAGE...period.
So, thank you for helping to prove my point. - JohnnySoftware, on 04/27/2009, -0/+2Sounds like a restaurant offering all you can eat buffet for $15.99 and then throwing someone out if they eat too much.
First, if it is too much they will hurt themselves and that will stop them.
Second, if it is a concern that everyone or too many people will eat too much they need to announce a limit or charge by the ounce - not say in ads, "for one flat rate".
Third, I don't think ads should say one thing and fine print should say the complete opposite.
If the ad says one thing and the contract or license says something completely different - I think that is still called "false advertising".
If it is a point of contention, maybe all parties should start running "netstat" command on their computer periodically so they can see how much bandwidth their own computer is using.
I am not saying one party or the other is right but just imagine if our cars had no fuel gauges or odometers. - Piha, on 04/27/2009, -0/+1Sheesh bring out the violins...
If it's not economical for them then they don't have to do it. And once it's done, if its done properly, it's just money rolling in.
Oh and it would be prime time to get these installations done cheaply. Cablers and other related professions will be desperate for work atmo during this so called recession. - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 04/26/2009, -0/+1You have issues.
- MScrip, on 04/27/2009, -0/+1I'm not defending TWC... I'm just saying that even though bandwidth is cheap, the still have other costs to cover.
If bandwidth is only 2 cents per gigabyte... then why does TWC charge $60 a month for high-speed internet? It should only be 80 cents per month!
It's still a rip off... but it costs a lot more than 2 cents to deliver 2 cents worth of bandwidth to your home.
Oh... and they don't want you watching Hulu or Netflix either... - MScrip, on 04/26/2009, -0/+1Those are boobs
- maz2331, on 04/26/2009, -1/+2Unless word gets out on the 'net that you beat them - then some will dispatch the army of lawyers with tactics that make the *AA crowd cringe.
It then becomes a PR battle to them, the lawyers are already a fixed budget expense, and unless you have a couple hundred grand for legal fees, their craziest counterclaims can crush you for life financially. - nyxerebos, on 04/27/2009, -0/+1If I pay for an unlimited connection,as advertised, I expect to be able to do all of the above. I'm not being a dumbass, I'm getting my money's worth. If they were clear about what they provided and what the limitations on the plans were, it would be less painful for all involved. And I would know which ISPs to avoid, because they probably dont want to deal with me anymore than I want to be locked into a contract with them.
- varun1s, on 04/27/2009, -0/+1I guess you haven't read up on GreenLight then..
- Piha, on 04/27/2009, -0/+1ROFL!!!
I think you might not care so much about Internet if you were living in Aussie, they still have quite a nice 'outdoors' thing happening. - Impact009, on 04/26/2009, -0/+0That's why I never want to live in Australia. It's been like that over there for as long as I can remember.
- rnawky, on 04/26/2009, -2/+2I'm glad I don't have a bandwidth cap.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9020/aprilusage ... - SniperZero, on 04/26/2009, -1/+1Because you can't download much without them...... mu, rs, youtube, porn....
- hawkeye22, on 04/26/2009, -2/+2People are just noticing this now? I've been raging hard over this very issue for the last five years.
- maz2331, on 04/26/2009, -1/+1True - but only IF you can afford the fight in the first place. Each round of motions will cost at least $10k in legal fees, and they'll just keep doing it. And your replies have to be perfect - even misformatting the text is grounds for the court to reject it, and give a default "win" to the other side.
And a lot of the MSM will report the corporate press release verbatim.
The game is rigged, unless you have deep pockets, or the support of a deep-pocketed foundation of some sort, you can't even play. - MScrip, on 04/26/2009, -1/+1>> "It costs TWC two cents per gigabyte in bandwidth costs. TWO CENTS."
Yes... but they have to pay their employees to drive around in those trucks to fix the cables on the poles and in the ground. New housing developments are being built all around me, and they have to pull cables to hundreds of new home sites. And there are people WORKING at TWC answering the phone and giving tech support.
Do you really think that TWC is just one guy and a server in a room somewhere?
Sure... bandwidth is cheap... but there is A LOT more to maintaining infrastructure. For instance... Verizon spends BILLIONS every year maintaining and improving their network. It costs money to run a communications network. It's much more than than just the cables buried in the ground. - recifer, on 04/26/2009, -2/+03web FTW!
- BetrayB3, on 04/26/2009, -5/+1Internet was designed for knowledge and sharing information. to slow down the internet in any way, limits this. Odly enough, as im writing this, i have to check if i have not gone over my 85gb download limit.
- MonsterRayn, on 04/26/2009, -4/+0If companies posted their "limits" the users would stay .01 Mbps under that limit, and still cause just as much congestion on the network, only be within their "rights". I'm all for companies however, posting reduced limits. Like if a company that offers a 6Mbps connection says that utilizing 3Mbps on a consistent basis (according to their policies) is too much, they tell the customers that it's really 2.0Mbps, or even 1.5Mbps, that way the customer won't know the *true* cap, and they'll be staying significantly under it, which would alleviate a lot of congestion for the rest of the users who just want to stream a little low quality audio, but can't since some dumbass wants to torrent the enitrety of the Simpsons, while streaming Superbad in HD on Netflix, gaming on 360, PS3, and PC, and streaming music on their iPhone.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 