Many builders do that to get the cash for a contract to not put in a rival. However; in most of the US easements are written into every real property deed to allow access for public utilities. FIOS qualifies as a public utility. Since the builder no longer owns any of the property, that agreement can't stop them from wiring up the community. With one exception, when they write that type of agreement in another community, they don't want the cable company to violate it, so they have a secret handshake agreement to honor those types of contracts. Get a couple of neighbors together and file a lawsuit and especially important, make noise, get the TV news and newspapers to comment on it. Then quickly and quietly, FIOS will show up in your neighborhood to stop the noise about these secret handshake agreements. Maybe if it actually gets to court, the judge will file a ruling that these types of contracts are illegal and it will help the many other neighborhoods where these types of deals have been made by builders that restricts consumer choice.
So let's see, you know how to cuss and make up a strawman ( you know, make up something I never said ) but not address any of the points I stated. So, some more details for you to not talk about and use some more cusswords. I have Comcast service. FIOS is available in my neighborhood. For the same price as I pay for Comcast service, I COULD get FIOS at a slower speed. Both Comcast and FIOS have much faster service levels at much higher prices, but in every case, the FIOS price is higher than the Comcast price at each service level (read that to mean that at every given price point, the FIOS service is slower than then Comcast service). Now, where did you get the 500mbps number from? You were the first to mention that. I never stated anything about the capability or lack there of for the speed capability. What has that got to do with the discussion at all? The discussion was that Verizon is a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company. Why do they need to get billions of dollars of taxpayer money up front, to never actually do what they were supposed to do, as in get FIOS to the taxpayers? If indeed they need to be given taxpayer money to build the infrastructure they are going to own in the end, at least lets make it conditional on actually doing what they were supposed to do, and then give them the money after its done, not before. That is my point and look, I didn't have to use any foul language, sling insults or make things up that weren't part of the conversation or even relevant (except in an NSA kind of way where everything is relevant). Isnt' that amazing?
I disagree. Especially in this case, Verizon is a multi-BILLION dollar company. They should get ZERO dollars until there is results. AND, especially since this is tax payer money, the results should be seen by taxpayers. What good is fiber close to the home? Of course, Verizon believes that we are all stupid anyway, FIOS does not deliver "fiber" speeds to the home, it delivers slightly less speed than Comcast for the same price. Go Figure! They put lots of money into capping technologies so that their fiber delivers less than cable.
Google via gmail provides an email service with no out of pocket payment. They trade off the payment of cash for the right to place ads on the viewed email. It's in the Terms of Service that were agreed to when the account was opened. That is the contract for using gmail. If someone doesn't like that contract, then why are they still using the service. Whoever is holding a gun to their head, please stop. If those idiots at the "Consumer Watchdog" group get their way, all of the free to use ad supported email providers are going to go away. The cost of building and running an email service the size of Yahoo or gmail is enormous. If this anti-consumer "Consumer Watchdog" group thinks that what gmail is doing is so wrong, why don't they offer their own free email service with no advertising?
If someone doesn't want to have Google place ads on their email, then they should stop using gmail. Or, heaven forbid, put up their own email service like I did. Look ma, no ads.
That document (from the description not my actually reading it) sounds like a "threat assessment", not a prediction of the future. Much as IT folks look at what types of threats could happen to their IT systems, action is only taken on the "most likely" ones. For example, how likely is it really that someone would put a tap on their internet connection. It could happen but is not likely. This report by an intelligence agency is like mapping out the possible moves in a game of chess. If my rook is taken, I'll do this, if my bishop is taken, I'll do that, if my queen is taken, I'll do something else. The next step is for the politicians to make a decision (OK, stop laughing, I'm serious) about which likely threats will develop into reality and put effective countermeasures in place to stop the attack (I said stop laughing at the politicians making decisions).
The problem seems to be that the 20-20 hindsight of the intelligence agencies reports would be good at tracking down the perpetrators since they "kind of - sort of" identify who most likely did it. But, if the leaders in charge were to "jump" too many times at false alerts it would look bad and so they don't jump at all and instead point fingers at somebody else as not doing their job. If they start "jumping at shadows", then we would just end up with more security theater.
To be more useful, those intelligence reports would also need to include some predictions into what would need to happen to indicate that something bad is immenent. Like in chess, when a certain set of moves start to happen, then most likely the opponent is trying to implement a certain strategy. As a bad example, "when the nuclear device shows up at the door to the mall, something bad is going to happen soon.
Unfortunately, the real world is not as open and visible as all the pieces on a chess board. Let's face it, even with perfect visibility of the pieces and moves on a chess board. Somebody always loses (almost-draws are very rare). The rules in chess and the movements of the pieces are all clearly laid out and visible. In real life, the rules are frequently ignored and the movements are hidden. Still, intelligency agencies seem to be able to "see" some of the clues and predict what will happen. But, also accurately forseeing enough clues of the pre-activities to accurately predict what and when would happen in time to stop the "bad thing" is still in the future.
Look at how many people it takes to receive this information, collate this information, report on this information, and their supervisors, and their supervisors, and their supervisors and so on. All those people processing all this useless intelligence are off the unemployment roles. You silly goose, this is wonderful employment that we get to pay taxes through the nose to collect, sort, report, and file away this useless information. Wasn't McCarthism good for this too?
The part I have a hard time believing about his rant is that the Russian Intelligence "spooks" would want the US (or anybody for that matter) to know that they had the Snowden files. Intelligence agencies want to collect data on the other guys to use against them, not to publish to the world that "they got it". If Snowden was truly working for Russian Intelligence (or any other agency for that matter) and he was able to get away with all of those files and most importantly, leave no trace, the Russians would have wanted him to stay in place and quietly send more, not "go public" and lose the source of the documents. That's the whole problem with the "traitor" theory against Snowden (and others) is that a real traitor would stay hidden and pass off the documents in secret for as long as possible. Traitors and moles don't ever go public. They stay hidden and collect up intelligence for as long as possible. Whistleblowers who feel that their government is betraying the public and breaking laws are the ones who go public and publish the government wrongdoing. It is the point that the allegations all seem to miss.
Re: Oh, and YET AGAIN, you kids go yapping off on false trail!
On Tuesday, a state Appeals Court ruled that the girl in that particular case could not be held liable. But it also ruled “that a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.”
Obviously you should not bother to point out these "errors" because you just didn't read and comprehend the Techdirt article or bother to click through and read the original. The title and the article correctly interpret the original article and the ruling as stated. The girl was not liable, but under other circumstance someone COULD be held liable. The big question is how will the next lawyer stretch that ruling to expand the liability some more.
The trouble I see with this ruling is that it requires the mind police to determine intent and prior knowledge. The abuse I see coming is that it will be added to the lawyers grab bag and added in every possible case to "see what sticks". It will just add to the cost of a case (billing hours for lawyers) and require third parties to prove the negative (how does a person prove they didn't know something)? Many times I will ask a person to text me some information for me to use later, just because I'm driving (or will be soon) and I can't write it down. Now that person may be held liable!!! It just doesn't make sense.
Oh, and if you wondered about the failure to connect the dots on the Boston Marathon bombings? It's because the intelligence community and all that money have no idea how to figure out those kinds of attacks.
Oh come on, sure they do! Just watch for the Terror Threats to be broadcast on Twitter. See:
The stupidity of this type of reaction will be coming to a head soon. There just needs to be a large enough group making a "threat" like this that the police will have to throw up their hands and say "sorry we can't handle it". If a thousand of these "threats" show up at the same time in the same area, then a more reasonable reaction than "lock 'em up and throw away the key" will be required. A real investigation will have to be conducted because they don't have the facilities to handle that many "terrorists".
It will end up being more of a First Amendment saving version akin to "Occupy Social Networks".
Its time to get rid of the thinking that jail time is required for holding up your fingers and saying bang but here's an extra $100 million for causing the banking system to collapse.
We have had the "But the Children" excuse and "But, But Terrorist" excuses bandied about. Well here's a new one "But the Mission". Considering how many generals and ex-military seem to be walking around the NSA, it seems the mindset came along as well.
Similar to the mindset we've seen at the DOJ, "Must WIN at all Costs". This means innocent people get put in jail at DOJ, and for NSA, people lose all the rights granted by the Constitution that NSA is supposed to be protecting.
While it is an admirable but misguided goal, the NSA (plus NYPD and other law enforcement agencies) are trying to stop crime before it happens, to "you know", save lives. But they are doing it by taking away our rights.
While crime prevention is an admirable goal, they are not the pre-crime unit with people who can see the future. The worst part of it is that they are the ones who are committing the whopping big crime of violating the Constitution.
These revelations leave me thinking that they have a criminal lawyer sitting at there shoulder saying "Objection, don't answer that question" who also spent some time "prepping the witness".
The "good guys" who are supposed to be preserving our constitutional rights have gotten themselves so focused on "completing the mission" of saving the lives of everyone have lost focus of everything else. Including the fact that they are "in spirit" and "in fact" trampling the very Constitutional laws they are supposed to be upholding.
He just doesn't care. He's the Gxx Dxxx Law and he'll arrest anybody he wants to, F'en US Constitution or not. Can't you get that through your thick skull.
Actually, he'll probably wait until the news "cools" and arrest someone else believing that they haven't heard about this, 'cause you know, he's the law and the masses will just forget he lost already.
They present their case the same way the NSA & DOJ present cases to the FISC, one sided, sloppy, and no basis in reality. It's a Win Win for them. Everybody else gets to have Big Brother decide what they can do or watch.
Take a good look at why now there are only two. Someone pretty much has to get elected from a third party before the third party is allowed as part of the election. The "Good ole' Boys" have made sure that we will only have the two parties that they control for the foreseeable future.
when the definition of security of our nation became "spying on all communications worldwide" to collect a useless database that has not prevent any "actual" terrorist act (FBI setups of innocent people don't count) or that the "security of our nation" depended on secret interpretations by secret courts with justifications that redefine common English words to mean the opposite of what everyone else thinks they mean. And don't forget it also means that the BIGGEST liars get to create independent committees to waste even more of our money to tell us that everything is OK, it is legal, now go away.
If we "just trust 'em" then slavery would still be legal. Let's face it, the US government just runs by the whim of the loudest bunch of lobbyists. At one time, alcoholic beverages were illegal. Most Americans didn't seem to want it that way though. It was repealed. It is no longer legal to "own" other people. Now its time to toss out all of the known terrorists in Congress and get the US Government back to upholding the Constitution and stop pandering to the "BUT TERRORISTS" and "BUT THE CHILDREN" loudmouths.
Yes we are at war! The war on drugs. The war on copyright infringers. The war on patent infringers.
The US Government has grown so HUGE that they tax us into poverty and spend the money to support the corporate state.
Those payments to the military industrial complex that lines insiders pockets (like senators wives) has to come from us, the unrepresented nerds in the basements with our computers.
The congress critters seem to have already forgotten how all of these basement dwellers dumped their SOPA agenda. Hopefully they will be just as successful dumping the non-representative members of Congress in the next election.
Didn't you read the news. They are chasing down Snowden as quickly as they can to shut him up. As soon as they can get their hands on him they will try him and lock him up. Who else could you be talking about.