Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:1 or 1 million (Score 1) 260

by mark-t (#47541173) Attached to: Verizon Now Throttling Top 'Unlimited' Subscribers On 4G LTE
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me or to somebody else, because what you are saying is pretty much what I had said... that any so-called limits that might exist arise as a consequence of a limitation of the technology, and since there is no pre-defined notion of just how fast that technology can become, it can still be considered unlimited in that sense.

Comment: Re:You can't sell what you don't have! (Score 3, Insightful) 260

by mark-t (#47540251) Attached to: Verizon Now Throttling Top 'Unlimited' Subscribers On 4G LTE
If the idea of "unlimited" bothers you, then think of an unlimited plan as being capped at whatever the technology currently being used would allow you to download 24/7 at whatever speed the network can support, for the entire billing cycle. As technology improves, that limit goes up... without any predefined limit.

Which is, of course, what "unlimited" means. So in reality, the term is quite accurate. The fact that a person can't physically download an infinite amount of content in a finite period because network speeds are finite is entirely irrelevant.

Comment: Re:1 or 1 million (Score 5, Insightful) 260

by mark-t (#47540211) Attached to: Verizon Now Throttling Top 'Unlimited' Subscribers On 4G LTE

Neither is downloading an unlimited amount in a finite period at any finite speed, no matter how fast. The point of an unlimited bandwidth plan is so that one does not experience any unexpected fees for excessive usage, regardless of how much they actually end up using the service. If Verizon doesn't have the infratstructure to support its subscribers having such plans, then they shouldn't be offering them.

The fact that they literally can't download an infinite quantity of content in a month is irrelevant.

If you're just adverse to the notion of "unlimited bandwidth" you can think of unlimited bandwidth plan, as actually a cap at whatever the theoretical maximum could be if they were downloading 24/7 at full speed for the entire billing cycle, the maximums of which are dictated by the physical hardware and technology... which is only limited by what we can do today, but if the technology improves, the cap goes up with it, with no defined upper bound. And that's the "unlimited" that is being referred to.

Comment: Re:RUDEST PASSENGER EVER (Score 1) 873

The other issue is whether the passenger did anything wrong by tweeting.

No, he did not. The flight agent was being a dick by asking him to leave... if the passenger really doubted that the agent had the authority to do ask that question, then he should have immediately asked to speak to that agent's manager or supervisor instead of complying with the request.

Comment: Re:RUDEST PASSENGER EVER (Score 1) 873

It very easily could have been a huge PR problem if they had called the police... but in all likelihood, he still wouldn't be allowed on the plane before they arrived, and by then the plane could have already left. Oh, and his luggage would be flying off without him.

Sounds like a good recipe for a migraine from bowels of hell.

Comment: Re:RUDEST PASSENGER EVER (Score 1) 873

...once he's allowed past the gate, he's allowed.

And once he's been asked to leave, he is trespassing if he does not peacefully comply. Companies can refuse service to anyone for practically any reason they want... presumably,. however, if the reason is not actually a good one, the bad publicity that could easily follow will tend to keep companies from being entirely *too* arbitrary about such reasons.

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley

Working...