FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Jan-26 8:08 pm
RE: 1% of all smartphones activated by AT&T in Q4 were iPhonHeadline wrong. That is 81% were iPhone 4s » thenextweb.com/apple/201 ··· phones/? |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2012-Jan-26 9:10 pm
Time for Google and Bing to be taken down....... for "substantial infringement activity" or "enabling copyright infringement."
Unless we're saying laws should be selectively enforced....
--
In Reality: It's these laws themselves that should be taken down. |
|
KrK |
KrK
Premium Member
2012-Jan-26 9:14 pm
AT&T Blames FCCQuoting a user response to the article by fgoldstein:
"Let me get th is stragiht. On the one hand, ATT is whining that they are desperate for more spectrum, which is why they wanted T-Mobile. On the ohter hand, ATT is whining that so much customer traffic has been offloaded onto WiFi that they are not making enough money to cover their investment, so they have to raise prices.
The contradiction is breathtaking. If it were not ATT, one would begin to wonder, but ATT routinely does things like this to test the fealty of their puppet analysts, regulators and legislators." |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to KrK
Re: Time for Google and Bing to be taken down....and to take them down the Googles of the world need to buy more congress critters.
Sadly our government is not about what we the voting public want but about who has the most dollars.
Bing naturally sits in an interesting area in that MS itself has to be against piracy yet they cant sue their own search engine. |
|
|
|
anon6
Anon
2012-Jan-26 10:53 pm
cheap internet for poorI agree the internet should be cheaper than it is now. |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
ArrayList
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 12:08 am
I think it should be priced fairly, not necessarily cheaper. |
|
reub2000 Premium Member join:2001-12-28 Evanston, IL |
to KrK
Re: AT&T Blames FCCFirst off, if AT&T didn't charge ridiculous prices for HSPDA bandwidth, then nobody would be using WiFi. Second off, they're probably well aware that the higher caps will have little influence on actual usage. If network congestion was really the issue, then they could allow users to have unlimited data usage in off-peak times to discourage big downloads during times of high load. |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ
1 recommendation |
to ArrayList
Re: cheap internet for poorsaid by ArrayList:I think it should be priced fairly, not necessarily cheaper. Or more importantly it should cost exactly what it says on the advertisement. if they say $45/mo for 12mbit then the bill at the end of the month should be for $45 not $60 after all the fee rape. |
|
|
Hawaii make keep track of all websites visited As stated in the CNET article: "Even the Justice Department has only lobbied the U.S. Congress to record Internet Protocol addresses assigned to individuals--users' origin IP address, in other words. It hasn't publicly demanded that companies record the destination IP addresses as well." Here is the problem: individuals--users' origin IP address. With NAT how are the privacy invaders going to identify who was using the broadband connection. In the case of a shared connection more incorrect identification and malicious prosecutions. When IPv6 is deployed everyone on the planet can be assigned a personal IP address which they will be required to use to log into the internet along with their biometric ID. That way the websites visited by them can be tracked. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
said by Mr Matt: Here is the problem: individuals--users' origin IP address. With NAT how are the privacy invaders going to identify who was using the broadband connection. In the case of a shared connection more incorrect identification and malicious prosecutions. That hasn't stopped the music or movie industries from suing the person who pays for the Internet connection. Never mind the fact that they have NO WAY of knowing who used the connection. |
|
|
|
|
|
to KrK
Re: AT&T Blames FCCI think att forgot to watch out where it was stepping again. How many times has this criminal corporation got away with things? I for one am glad they didnt get t mobile, and ended up losing big money, but the only problem now is they are gonna be looking to rate hike even more. T-mobile loss recovery fee: 25.00 |
|