I am a Canadian and I am a Shaw customer. This is the first question that comes on my mind when they tried to start metered broadband and enforce their data cap.
First, a bit of background. Before, what Shaw would do is to give out "warning" to people who are consistently over the "suggested" cap. There weren't any specific cap on the agreement, but internally there are (60GB/Mon for most cable modem users). For those people, they'll also turn on this internal application, which they claim to use internally, that shows Up/Down traffic for a 12 month period.
As someone who do heavy surfing, watch/dl lots of video etc online, I was concerned although personally I never was warned. I have DUMeter which tracks locally on my computer and a router that tracks usage. Out of curiosity (and caution), I asked customer service to turn on this internal application for me so I can track my own usage from their end.
It was never, ever, accurate.
We are not talking about 1-2GB difference. Those I would accept as margin of error on a 60GB theoretical limit. I am talking about double digit differences in GB, from month to month, constantly. During the 4 years I have this thing on, there was never a month that was accurate.
Now, with this kind of track record, how, if ever, can Shaw make me believe they can track my usage correctly and not charge me extra for data I've never used?
Now, margin of error is acceptable if this is only used to warn people, but what they were trying to do with the cap has money on the line. Shaw can probably get sued for charging for services that was never delivered.
They don't monitor every call. It's like a watch list too. The only difference is that their watch list is much much bigger and almost all foreigners are on the list.
Years ago (and that's in the late 199x and early 200x), when you visit China, you have to be very careful when you talk to people. The type of people you want to be especially careful about are taxi drivers, who during transit will chat you up. If you are a foreigner, you need to be especially careful on what you say. There are a large percent of "informants" among the taxi drivers.
In addition to this, I remember those days when you call out of China from a hotel on a land line, your call will routinely fail on the first call, and then the second call would go through. When my co-workers calls, this almost always happens. It was until one day another person from a different company with base in China told me that they are automatically/manually checking foreigners' calls.
I haven't heard anything like that for the latter part of 200x though, but from this post it still seems to be going on.
If arriving at NYT from a link doesn't count as one of your "limited" visit...
what's stopping someone setting up a pure portal page for all the NYT article? And if you want to avoid NYT catching you, you can link to all the articles in the web that links to the NYT page you want?
So in essence, did NYT just gave up all their potential traffic and revenue on their pages to 2nd/3rd party news sites/agencies?
I pointed this out like, 2 years ago and it's all slowly coming true. I just have a few opinions with the whole thing
1. The IEEE article seems quite fixated on win rate. Apparently the win rate is a concern. But it shouldn't be. Are we assuming that all claims are valid? Such that if you lose your case, win rate is down and that signifies a problem? The article also suggest that the new IP court is putting out more professional and consistent ruling. This tells me that the number of false claims are increasing and that's why the win rate is dropping.
2. Why are the Americans crying because they are not winning? This just tells everyone that US are not interested in fairness or IP protection. They are just interested in winning their own cases. What they really want, is a puppet IP court that rules all their cases as valid. Now that an actual court is set up which the US has no power over and (i am assuming) ruling more professional and fairly, they cry foul. Geez, the world is not as perfect as you would like to believe eh?
Re: I predict the return of the old fashioned sneakernet.
don't forget the following parties in contributory infringement...
-USPS for mailing the CDs and memory sticks
-Transit system for letting pirates taking them to go to destination
-Telco for letting them discuss meeting details
-7-11 for supplying delicious snacks and drinks when pirates are hungry and thirsty
-Music stores for selling the "source CD" for piracy
-Parents for raising pirates (oh wait, they are already on the list)
-Backpack companies for providing bags for carrying pirating material
-Stationary makers for making envelopes
-RIAA for organizing artists in a easy to target list for pirates
Poor Reynolds. The morons over at ICE/HS probably say, "hey this guys is freshly out of college and young. He must know how this thing works. Let's put him on this hired job from MPAA since we ourselves has absolutely no idea what's going on."
On the other hand, any college student with some kind of technological knowledge would know a few of the basics on the Internet and file sharing. Based on how clueless this is, seems like ICE/HS is really getting the "cream" of the crop isn't it.
Or, another possibility... MPAA's clueless lawyers actually wrote this! either being clueless or intentionally misleading, and Reynolds is just signing them without checking!
I don't think any kind of campaign is going to make people interested in going to use to get groped and naked scanned.
I haven't fly to US in over 6 years and there will be no convincing me to fly to US to visit until TSA is gone. I've thought about going to Las Vega for holiday a few times in the 6 years, but they are quickly crushed by the thought of TSA.
"Of course, supporters might claim that terrorists are too scared off by the screenings, so that's why we're safe."
I present you, quotes from The Simpsons episode "Much Apu about Nothing"
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
If a country has no concept of a species of fish named "salmon", then it would be impossible for them to call it one. In many states there are many definitions and species of "fish", the same word is used to mean more than one species of "fish". So what someone in Europe may call a "fish", someone in the USA may call a "salmon", and it wouldn't change a thing.
If a country has no concept of a species of fish named "salmon", then it would be impossible for them to call it one. In many states there are many definitions and species of "salmon", the same word is used to mean more than one species of "salmon". So what someone in Europe may call a "fish", someone in the USA may call a "salmon", and it wouldn't change a thing.