The article on TorrentFreak (liked in TFA) has the court filings from both USCG and Syfert's reply.

It sees that the USCG is now complaining that the motions that the defendants filed in response (using Syfert's document pack) should not be accepted. The rule (that USCG quotes) says that the defendant's council must discuss with plaintiff's council before filing such motion and then serve defendant council with copies of the motion. However, the defendants are not being represented by any council (and certainly not Syfert, as indicated by his reply to USCG's request for sanctions) so those rules would not apply. USCG's assertion that the defendants need to first confer with them would be completely contrary to the purpose of the filings--to prevent the court from releasing the identity to the USCG.

The defendants using the forms sold by Syfert is no different than someone using Legal Zoom or buying a package of legal forms from Staples. The problem (for USCG) is that the filings now require USCG to spend real money defending their assertion that the Doe defendants are liable, whether to simply answer the motions or possibly take the case to the court with correct jurisdiction over the defendants. What the USCG is attempting to do is discourage other Doe defendants from trying to defend themselves against the allegations.

The scam artists typically are pumping traffic to revenue share numbers (think the international equivalent of 1-900 numbers), where they get a cut of the call termination cost. And the revenue share numbers are in countries that many people have never heard of, such as Tuvalu.

"Does anyone find it odd that the libertarian Tea Party candidate goes running for governement/federal/legal support when she runs into difficulty campaigning?"

No, not really. Many conservatives/libertarians (especially the ones that have latched themselves onto the GOP) have been holding two opposite positions for quite a while. The government shouldn't be telling me how to live my life but it should be telling others how to live their lives like the way I do. Keep the government hands off my Medicare. Look around at Tea Party rallies: how many of them are railing against government programs but are collecting Social Security and Medicare? How many of them would be willing to give up taking money from those "socialist" programs?

"There's no ignorance in her remarks, she knows exactly what she is doing."

I'm not too sure about that. All of the quotes sound like they came from an empty shirt who thinks she knows everything just because she has some paper and got to where she was not by achievement but who she knows. Similar to all the CxO's who run companies into the ground, escape with the golden parachute then land another cushy job to do the same thing over again.

Its not so much a matter of letting one's self being pushed around. Its more a matter of there being no alternative. Look at where TWC was trying out caps: nowhere near the areas where they have real competition from Verison's FiOS. That leaves areas that the best competition is DSL where if you're close enough to the CO maybe you can get 3/768. Interestingly, TWC's announced cap trial (and public backlash) in upstate New York prompted Frontier (the LEC in some areas) to abandon its own plans to cap their DSL service. This does seem to be an outcome of lack of decent competition in most areas.

Oh, but they want to. They've seen the dollar signs in their eyes and right now are regrouping and working on how to re-introduce caps after better "educating" the customer on the urgent need for their implementation. Look at the price structure for the caps (and overage charges): its all about raising the price of users who they think use ("always on") service too much while being able to say that the ISP didn't raise their prices, and I would go so far as to use the term gouge in some cases.

Take AT&T's 3G mobile Internet service which they sell for $60/month. The plan limit is quoted in GB (5 GB to be exact) but the overage amount is quoted in KB. A person who doesn't know any better probably doesn't know what a KB is verses a GB and that 1 KB is 1/1,048,576 a GB. The price sheet is purposely misleading.

At 0.00048/KB for overage, that's 503.32/GB. Either AT&T is selling the first 5GB at a huge loss or their overage charges are unconscionable

For Comcast (prior to last year) and now it seems TWC, its more along the lines of, "we will kick you out if you eat more than we think you deserve to eat" but without telling you what that threshold is or that there even is one. When you consider that the limiting factor is not the bandwidth from the ISP to the internet or the cost of it there. It is from the head end to the user where you have very oversold nodes; in the case of TWC, they're been fairly resistant to upgrading to DOCSIS 3 which, while a band-aid, should provide more available system bandwidth. And yes, a lot of it has to do with protecting their video revenues.

What happens when a car crashes into the utility pole or pedestal or a gardener digs up buried cable, or any number of other things happens?

POTS isn't some magic that never has faults or vulnerabilities of its own.

According to the Ars Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/espionage.ars), Mullor was a Program Manager in the Windows Security Group. It seems unlikely that he would all of a sudden later discover on chance that Microsoft was putting functionality into Windows that he (and his seemingly defunct company) has a patent that covers it. How is this different that Rambus not telling the standards body (that they were apart of) that SDRAM might infringe on their patents?

I hate to say it but Microsoft might be in the right here. Not to mention that the patent is BS.

A far, far majority of quality problems for both CDV and independant VoIP are cased by the connection between the end user's premesis equipment (eMTA) and the cable company's head end, inclusive of the neighborhood node: HFC plant signal quality or node congestion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the internet. Suggesting otherwise is just FUD.

But Comcast does not. Comcast Digital Voice rides the same channel as cable modem. The only real difference between CDV and another VoIP product (ie Vonage, etc) is that the ATA is built into the cable modem.

But would the evidence hold up in court? In the decision cited, the evidence was visable to the private individual. In the case of the cell phone pictures presumably the device was searched, probablly specificlly for contraband; it was not visable.

Most notably did the school have the right to search the student's phone/does a student have the expectation of privacy. There have been varying rulings over whether the police can search a cell phone or PDA of an individual placed under arrest. In the case of a school, they are not the police and do not have the authority of the police (despite some administrators thinking that they do).

It sounds like they're going to sell their assets off to someone else, leaving SCO as just a shell from which to continue the lawsuits and hide away the assets from future claims against them.