AOL was prosecuted or threatened with prosecution (sorry, don't remember) for overselling its capacity. The quote of someone (prosecutor, AG, etc) at the time was something about how it would clearly be fraud to sell 10,000 tickets to a theater that only had 3,000 seats. I think it was a state AG. AOL customers were bitterly complaining about signing up and never being able to get connected.
Maybe the FCC or someone should quantify how much capacity an ISP has and whether they are overselling it? This would affect their advertising in a good way. They could sell more subscriptions, but then their ads would have to say:
Join ComCraptastic Now! Enjoy download speeds up to* 200 Kbps!
The NSA would like you to download and install this national security protection software onto your computer. It is a good idea. And it is for your protection. (Sort of like how Macrovision Quality Protection is for your protection somehow?)
Netflix may not even use AT&T. But make no mistake that Netflix is paying for its network connection.
And I pay my ISP. (Not actually AT&T for internet service.)
What Comcast, AT&T and others want is to get paid again from Netflix. But my argument is that if I have to pay (let's say AT&T) to upgrade their network to carry my Netflix traffic, then AT&T should charge me directly for that. It's only fair that I pay for network capacity that I use. I expect to have to pay for the generating capacity and line maintenance for my electricity.
If each ISP charges their own customers to enable that ISP to carry the traffic the customer wants, it gives more transparency to how much it costs for various levels of service, and those prices can be compared in the (currently non competitive) market. Furthermore, this eliminates all sorts of games to hide what it actually costs to build the network, or how much AT&T wants to collect above and beyond what they actually need to operate the network capacity their customers need.
AT&T will come to Netflix, asking for money. We will hear "AT&T should not have to bear the cost of Netflix's business model". AT&T has to spend significantly to grow its neglected infrastructure in order to handle increased internet video streaming. Netflix should have to pay AT&T the full cost of these infrastructure upgrades.
Verizon will come to Netflix for money. We will hear the same thing. Netflix should have to pay Verizon the full cost of building up Verizon's network to carry Netflix traffic.
Other ISPs, ditto.
Next . . .
AT&T will come to Amazon asking for money. Amazon should have to bear the full cost of building up AT&T's network. (But wait, didn't Netflix have to pay that?)
Verizon will come to Amazon asking for money . . . etc etc
Next . . .
Each ISP will come to each video streaming service. Hulu. Yahoo. Vimeo.
Next each ISP will come asking for money to set top boxes. Roku. Amazon Fire. Google TV. Apple TV. Etc. Apple should have to bear the full cost of building out AT&T's network. (Is this starting to sound familiar?)
Here is my first problem with this. If AT&T needs to build up it's infrastructure, then CHARGE ME for that cost. Not Netflix. After all, I'm going to have to pay for the network upgrades either way, either directly to AT&T or via Netflix.
My second problem with this is that if I pay indirectly through Netflix to upgrade AT&T's network, then I am subsidizing network upgrades for my l33t neighbor's terabytes of torrentz.
My third problem is that if I pay indirectly through Netflix to upgrade Comcast's network (which I am now doing thanks to Netflix / Comcast deal) I am paying to upgrade a network I don't even use.
My fourth problem is the very likely double, triple dipping. AT&T will want to recoup the costs of its network upgrades multiple times.
The point of net neutrality is that every end pays for bandwidth. Period. Not for what type of traffic. Not for where it connects to. Just for the amount. It's like electricity. If I draw a certain large amount, it doesn't matter what I am using the electricity for. Similarly for water. They don't bill me differently for wither I drink it or water the lawn with it.
Each endpoint pays its own freight. If my Netflix viewing is causing AT&T to need to upgrade its infrastructure, then CHARGE ME DIRECTLY for that. Don't charge my other neighbor who only uses email.
Next prediction: AT&T will come, hat in hand, to Google, asking for money. AT&T should not have to bear the cost of delivering Google's search results to end users.
The CIA had doubts about whether their torture methods were effective, let alone legal. So they decided to conduct additional testing. A lot of additional and undocumented testing. It's no big deal.
Since the CIA never received any feedback that its secret torture of additional people wasn't legal, they safely assumed that it must be legal.
For future reference, please remember. Anything the government does, unless otherwise expressly prohibited, and sometimes even if expressly prohibited, is legal. Anything the citizens do, unless expressly permitted, and sometimes even if expressly permitted, is illegal.
Apple is very good at selling the illusion that it is innovative. Apple may be (or Steve may have been) good at defining the next great concept and how it should be. Simple. Elegant. But then they aren't the long term innovator on the concept they defined.
As for freedom and creativity? I would say freedom to find creative ways to slip things by the USPTO. Bouncy scrolling? Slide to unlock? Quick links?
Re: Re: Who is qualified to judge torture 'fairly'?
Very little needs to be said. Torture doesn't work. Never has. The lack of useful intelligence from it has already been covered. The people who do it are people who should not be free in a civilized society. The policymakers who support it undermine the nation's long term credibility and moral high ground. Most of these arguments also apply to NSA bulk surveillance.
Falsely taking down someone else's content is much more a case of Theft and Stealing than piracy.
In the case of false takedowns, someone else's entire work is removed from their entire audience. And if they derive income from it, then their entire income from it as well.
Piracy, at worst, never takes away the entire work, the entire audience or the entire income stream. And it very likely doesn't take away any of these. The pirates are people who would not have bought it anyway. And that might simply be due to excessively high prices, inconvenient purchasing, inconvenient access, inability to put it on all your devices, region restrictions, availability windows, unskippable commercials on content you paid for, and unskippable "YOU MUST BE A PIRATE!" accusations.