The decision does not seem customer-focused. Many posters missed Carlo's point that the calls are going out over a voice line, not a data line. So you *are* burning call minutes. The legal restriction is a possibility although it's lame that Skype/Verizon would follow a rule that no one else does.
The release does not suggest that Sling changed anything at AT&T's request. It specifically says that the "original" app was efficient. Lame PR but yours and Sling's interpretation of it is off.
That's one of the dumber things I've read. Monetizing stolen credit cards in that way is moronic. Since the unauthorized credit card use would get reported long before any royalties are paid out, the scheme is simple to spot.
The (not so) counter-intuitive result is that the more ridiculous the password requirement, the more likely it needs to be written down and thus more vulnerable.
If the marginal cost of delivering something is zero, the cost to the consumer will trend toward zero. Someone will always come along and do the same thing, charge less and look elsewhere for revenue. You can't charge for something that costs nothing!
It's not that "information" wants to be free. It's that *anything* with a "zero marginal cost to deliver" wants to be free. The only obstacle to such being free are artificial barriers.
The decision does not seem customer-focused. Many posters missed Carlo's point that the calls are going out over a voice line, not a data line. So you *are* burning call minutes. The legal restriction is a possibility although it's lame that Skype/Verizon would follow a rule that no one else does.
Does anyone really know what the true impact of this is going to be? A lot of the speculation seems to be pretty far off base.
The release does not suggest that Sling changed anything at AT&T's request. It specifically says that the "original" app was efficient. Lame PR but yours and Sling's interpretation of it is off.
Re: �World� Series?
It's just a name...nothing to get too worked up over.
Amen. The papers that *did* send reporters are idiotic (except Philly, NYC and the surrounding areas, of course).
That's one of the dumber things I've read. Monetizing stolen credit cards in that way is moronic. Since the unauthorized credit card use would get reported long before any royalties are paid out, the scheme is simple to spot.
The only thing worth doing at this point is improving government effectiveness and at lower cost.
The (not so) counter-intuitive result is that the more ridiculous the password requirement, the more likely it needs to be written down and thus more vulnerable.
When the marginal cost is zero or near zero, the cost to the customer will trend to zero. Fighting this is a lost cause.
If the marginal cost of delivering something is zero, the cost to the consumer will trend toward zero. Someone will always come along and do the same thing, charge less and look elsewhere for revenue. You can't charge for something that costs nothing!
Amen. Newspapers could get to profitability if they simply tried.
David Feldman is wrong.
It's not that "information" wants to be free. It's that *anything* with a "zero marginal cost to deliver" wants to be free. The only obstacle to such being free are artificial barriers.
"there is nothing risked"
I'm surprised this obvious untruth made it into a court document.
When the marginal cost of your service is zero, it *MUST* have a free component!
It's hard to get traction but it's easy to make money on traction.
Mosso.com
Surprised not to see mention of RackSpace's Mosso.com
If Craigslist didn't show up, how'd they get the name?
This is totally ridiculous. I can't think of any reason why Craigslist should be compelled to reveal the person, if it even knows who it is.