How about the movement to make wireless a little more consumer friendly aim for just making data use independent of the device? Now that AT&T has decided that $30 equates to some fixed level of data, then I should be free to consume that data on any device I see fit without having to pay extra for the privilege of doing so.

It is really going to take a SOPA level of consumer outrage to get these people to play nice?

Exactly. And it gets even more insidious because Monsanto and others have actively sought to use genetic modification to turn off unauthorized propagation.

So now Monsanto will no longer have to sue farmers into submission for having the misfortune of planting their public domain seed stock too close to IP protected seeded fields and picking up traits of protected plants; they just have to wait three or four seasons for the public domain seed to have its gene pool sufficiently cross-pollinated and they too will adhere to the programmed rules of unauthorized propagation. Watch as these companies slowly become the *only* source for dent/#2 corn, soybeans, red and winter wheat.

Equally concerning is that these bio-engineered crops, especially those with propagation control, put a limit to genetic diversity. We're really setting ourselves up for another potato-style famine.

TFA:

"The tracking system, called FootPath Technology, works through a series of antennas positioned throughout the shopping center that capture the unique identification number assigned to each phone (similar to a computer's IP address), and tracks its movement throughout the stores. ... And it doesn't collect any personal details associated with the ID, like the user's name or phone number. That information is fiercely protected by mobile carriers, and often can be legally obtained only through a court order. "

Yet. You can bet your sweet bippy that while the mall can't get the identifying information, the mall *will* sell it to the carriers who do have the information. This would be a marketing goldmine for the carriers, and one they could not help but to exploit for fun and most importantly, profit.

I would opt out by simply not shopping at that mall. My cellular phone is for my own convenience and one that I pay to maintain, it isn't so companies can figure out where I shop and give them incentive to try to get me to be a good little consumer and spend all my money.

My tolerance for this kind of thing is getting lower each time I read stories like this. More and more, companies seem to view the public as sheep to be shorn without any expectation of privacy, rights nor recourse.

Because the larger an enterprise, the greater likelihood that each department has its own attendance and time policies. Start adding in union contracts, and now you're really having fun. I'm sure the garbage collectors in NYC are paid much much differently than the teachers. Each of those examples probably are nightmares on their own with exceptions to rules, bonuses, overtime and penalties for missed lunches.

However, this is also a case of poor project management. I would not have assigned that job to anyone but the best PPMs.

Minimizing one's tax obligations through philanthropy or legitimate tax credits, breaks or deferments is one thing, funneling money earned outside the country to shield it from the IRS or hiding money under a complex web of fraudulent companies is completely another thing. And this is what that is about; rich people realizing gains through foreign transactions and failing to report it on their taxes.

People go to jail for that. As well they should, it's a crime and the rest of society doesn't play that game. Why should the wealthy?

As far as the other half of your question, it doesn't change the illegal behavior of those involved. Whether or not the government is entitled or feels entitled doesn't change the fact that not only are those wealthy that are involved are breaking the law, they're FREELOADERS enjoying the benefits of this society without paying the costs.

A mobile worker like a snow plow driver has zero reason to carry a cell phone. The trucks are equipped with radios.

In the context of wireless, it's not trivial. There are spectrum auctions, licensing, site acquisition and leasing, marketing and customer support. The fact that you call it trivial betrays a certain ignorance on the topic. It's not dial-up.

More importantly, the "entitlement-crowd" is also known as "the customer crowd". As it stands at this very moment, I have an entitlement with AT&T for data carriage services from my smart phone to any site I so desire. That entitlement remains as long as my check cashes. If AT&T decides that their network infrastructure provides a better return on investment by prioritizing or engaging in tiers of service, then I will indeed find another ISP. And if necessary, I will go without a smart phone if it no longer fits what deem as an acceptable level of service.

I'm not alone in this thinking. While I greatly enjoy all the benefits of a smart phone with internet connectivity, piss me off and I'll slide my SIM into my $40 dumb phone, cancel all my data plans and AT&T just lost $180 month while conniving to get an extra $20 a month out of me in incremental service charges.

Having worked in the wireless industry, I agree that wireless data is fundamentally different than cable or wire-line access due to the scarcity of spectrum. But that isn't an open invitation to fleece the customer, and that is what this is about more than anything. Wall Street wants an ever increasing amount of flesh, and managers are required to deliver in order to justify their own entitlements.

It's real simple; if the consumer doesn't want it, the consumer won't pay for it. As the previous posts have indicated, if this appears on any of the internet services for which I pay, they're gone. Period.

If it comes down to an internet that is tiered like cable TV channels, it's no longer the product I want to buy. And these companies that sell this stuff to telcos and MCOs can explain why the insertion of their very expensive equipment resulted in customer defections.

We're still in charge here; it may not be fun to have to give up the iPhone and the internet access at home, but if it proves a necessary point, I can certainly spend the money just as easy on something else.

There's two reasons for consumption based-billing:

1. Make Netflix a lot less inexpensive in order to keep the profit line strong on their own video offerings.

2. Raise prices. Consumption based billing won't be less expensive for people who are light users because broadband service will be $50 for the privilege of having the coax terminate at the house, and *then* you pay what the meter says. And it won't be cheap; I would not rule out several dollars per gigabyte. By doing so, the ISP has a nice fat recurring revenue stream for doing absolutely nothing, and a service pricing structure that encourages you not to use the service.

I don't have a problem with consumption based billing. I have a problem to the GOTHCA! capitalism of having Wall Street and its corporate minions finding yet another way to fleece the public.