XcOM987’s Techdirt Profile


About XcOM987

XcOM987’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 27th, 2018 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re:

    I am sure it's still advertised as $5.99 but has $20 broadcast fee and a $4 recovery fee that's tacked on to the bill, but this isn't part of the cost of the service, this is all required by regulations*

    *Maybe complete bullshit

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re:

    That aside, I don't see why a name should be locked away for use just because someone famous had the same name, I could understand if they called it "Elvis Presley Juice" but alas, they did not.

  • Feb 6th, 2018 @ 6:55am

    Re: This is incidental...

    I think that was managed under anti consumer rules

  • Feb 6th, 2018 @ 6:51am


    If all goes to plan though the FTC won't have the authority to pat the FCC on the back

  • Jan 10th, 2018 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I am curious, why do you keep resorting to name calling, insults and accusing anyone that has a differing opinion to yourself stupid/idiotic or variation thereof?

    Can people not have differing views of things and not be stupid, surely the best way is education rather than name calling?

    All you are doing is undermining any credibility you may have in your views and statements.

  • Jan 9th, 2018 @ 9:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This "disagreement" was even complete with two article from TD about protectionist laws being written. If you were NOT disagreeing with me... then what were you doing?

    Do you support state law's written by ISP's preventing homegrown ISP's then?

    I do agree that municipal networks would be the best thing from my point of view (Which may or may not be correct, there are more things at play which I won't be privy to)

    I was highlighting the problems which face municipal networks because of these laws, they need to be removed, some of them to beagger belif, I am sure I read somewhere that one state has a rule preventing municipal networks included in traffic light laws? or am I thinking of something else? I am trying to recant from memory here.

  • Jan 9th, 2018 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Running cable in a village is cheaper than running it in a suburb. Your houses are closer together.

    True our villages are closer than villages in America for example, but at the same time, once your in the village things should be about the same aren't they?

    We have a body which ruled that OpenReach (The UK's main internet provider) supply internet to everywhere in the UK with a minimum requirement which will be reviewed and upped as requirements for general life increase.

    It's not that cheap to lay cable here due to other regulations and such but OpenReach do it none the less, I beleive they recently announced they are spending another £3-6 Billion (About $4.05-8.1 billion) so it's not like they aren't seriously investing.

    Didn't I hear the 1996 telecomunications act effectivly pay to connect everywhere with Fiber? or am I mixing that up with something else?

  • Jan 9th, 2018 @ 9:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Firstly let me point out that I wasn't trying to be disingenuous to yourself regarding this matter, I wasn't intending to come across as such or condasending, well not as much as you've tried in your reply anyway, sounds more like a foaming at the mouth reply rather than a well thought out and contructed response to help progress the conversation or highlight points that may have been overlooked, but Alas I will attempt to respond in kind:

    It is dishonest and showing when you use "but they are corrupt" as an argument when everyone is corrupt. Protectionist laws are being written at all the levels not just state or local. Find a better argument please!

    so just because it's happening everywhere you shouldn't be bothered about it? I am also sure I mentioned this in my post, to recant:

    You now have ISP's that feel that the rules should be goverened at a state level when they are trying to push back at federal rules but at the same time say they states shouldn't be allowed to write these rules when all of a sudden the states in question are trying to protect consumers.

    I admit I could have been clearer in that statement, what I was alluding to is the fact that ISP's push state rules when it suits them and federal rules when it suits them, IE buying state protection rules but at the same time pushing for the FCC to stop states from enacting their own NN rules or privacy rules for example.

    It looks the same on your side from mine, so what? You think your shitbags are better than mine? Mine are full of bullshit and yours are full of horseshit. Shit either way and no it does not matter that you like the smell of your shit better. Both sides still smell like shit.

    At no point did I point out or infer that we are perfect in the UK, this seems like nothing more than a "Well so are you nerr ner nee ner nerrr", but as you brought this up, we have muppets in control of our country that seem to be in a world of their own and seemingly want to control everything even if it's not possible, every country has issues with their govenments, I simply made an observation that the ISP industry (Amongst others) seem to have soo much infuence over the people that are supposed to be making unbiased decisions on what is the best for the people that are supposed to be representing, we have a similar issue over here and I point it out to people.

    I will normally be one of the first to point out the failings in our country as we aren't without them.

    I want what you just said you have, but here you are still fucking with me and disagreeing with me and ONLY because I don't want to get to where you are the way your dogma says I should.

    Please point out where I implied this, at no stage did I say I disagree with you, I was simply highlighting an issue that may lie ahead is all, I don't even pretend to think I know what is right or wrong for you, your personal circumstance haven't been made known to myself, even if they were I wouldn't try to impose my whims on you, my point in that paragraph was to show how it can work.

    As for weak NN rules, they are better than no rules, or rules that will be passed by congress that will be worse than nothing, your better off with weak NN rules and work from there, need to start somewhere, either that or lose all NN protections, then get screwed over and start a mass movement akin to the French revolution

  • Jan 9th, 2018 @ 6:57am


    The biggest problem with this is the state protection law's which have been shown to be nothing but bad for consumers and some times even written by ISP's time and time again.

    You now have ISP's that feel that the rules should be goverened at a state level when they are trying to push back at federal rules but at the same time say they states shouldn't be allowed to write these rules when all of a sudden the states in question are trying to protect consumers.

    As someone who is on the outside looking in being from over the pond, I genuinly wonder why people are allowed to get away with this, it's not even subtle, the only way you can call it subtle is if you were to descibe it as being as subtle as a sledge hammer!

    I know people don't like regulation, and people say regulation won't work in the internet/ISP world, well a good chunk of the world would beg to differ, where I live which is a village, we have 1 main provider that maintains the lines, then all other ISP's can use these lines to see broadband, and because of this we have lots of competition, I can't remember the last time I saw an ISP in the UK offer limited connections or caps, they are all pretty much unlimited, I reguarly hit 1tb a month due to streaming all my content from Netflix, Amazon and such.

    it's going to be hard to take down the few ISP's that are around as they have soo much power and many people don't have much choice in the matter, but somthing needs to be done soon, I can't see people putting up with this for much longer, as people become more tech savy I hope they will be grilled on their tech policies.

  • Jan 9th, 2018 @ 4:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Book scanning writ large

    I just used to put a 6" nail through all the platters to shatter them before they went off to WEEE centers to be shredded. wouldln't stop someone seriously wanting the data, but would stop the opertune thief.

  • Jan 9th, 2018 @ 4:19am

    Re: Now, now, kids: relying on technicalities likely means DOOMED.

    just automatically sides with likely criminals.

    Accused, Techdirt sides with the accused, just remember this next time you yourself are accused and wish people to side with you rather than call you criminal.

  • Dec 14th, 2017 @ 5:41am

    Re: Of Course They Do

    Please highlight for me where in the NN rules it states what services an ISP has to provide and what services they are not allowed to provide in the relms of what you have just stated, keep it limited to the argument you have stated, I'll wait.

    There is nothing in the NN rules to stop comcast starting their own streaming services, If that would be the case why does every major ISP provide their own streaming service?

    All it means is they wouldn't be allowed to favour one streaming service over another because they didn't pay them enough does it now?

  • Dec 1st, 2017 @ 6:05am


    The thing is though, law's already exist to target this, what really needs to be brought to the attention of the masses is why aren't these law's already being used? if they are ineffective then that need to be looked at why and ammendments be made, not just make a whole new law that looks to akin to taking a sledger hammer to a crack a nut.

    Yes section 230 is overbroad, but that was by design to prevent a lot of the skullduggary that people have indeed tried.

    I also don't believe you can compare newspapers to online blogs as they are two completly different animals, one has editorial control over the content that users send in, the amount that comes in is not that vast compared to online communities such as FaceBook who every 60 seconds has 510,000 comments posted, 293,000 statuses updated, and 136,000 photos uploaded (Source The Social Skinny, accurate up to November 2017)

    So your argument of treating newpapers and online sites the same is complete and utter nonsence, unless you want every online blog to have press protections like the newspaper has also? two different industries, two different sets of regulations.

    N/B News papers can make use of section 230 on their websites themselves but that is more an online service than a broadsheet or newspaper.

  • Oct 5th, 2017 @ 4:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Comment of the year right there ^

  • Oct 5th, 2017 @ 3:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Only on the provision that in an outage you will be allowed to disconnect your house from the grid so you can continue to power your house

  • Sep 28th, 2017 @ 4:48am

    Re: Re: Deloitte is lying

    and as if by magic!

  • Sep 27th, 2017 @ 6:57am


    From what I read, they were the only ones to do anything right, they fired the employee that was breaking the rules and reported it to the officals straight away, that really is a case of small enough to prosecute, it does send a signal that if your big enough you pretty much can do what you want, Like the banks giving the CEO's and whatnot big bonus' after being bailed out.

  • Sep 27th, 2017 @ 6:45am

    Re: Deloitte is lying

    As is par for the course really, Mike mentioned it in the Equifax that these are always worse than first reported, I forsee this being fairly bad, I wouldn't be surprised if this is someone acting out a real life version of "Mr Robot", first Equifax, now Deloitte, I wouldn't be surprised if this has massive implicatons on the economy and/or the populous.

  • Sep 26th, 2017 @ 9:28am


    Oh good, we get to play megamerger bingo again!

  • Sep 22nd, 2017 @ 5:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Consumer Confusioning

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if Netflix licence it to them for nothing or a very small ammount, or even better, get them to do themed popups of their other shows over time, they can outsource it all to them,

    I think Netflix have handled this very well, clearly much better than others have in the past, but this is polar opposite to what they did in France with their Narco advert against piracy where they threatened to kill the piraters and their families, it was very good in the context of being themed about Narco's but in very bad taste.

    This makes me think they have learnt from their mistakes and are trying to do good with the promise of thinking before acting.

More comments from XcOM987 >>