Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Because money (Score 1) 212

Yes. Not for profit. Not for profit what?

This is my main problem with people who complain about the Citizens United decision--none of them ever seem to stop to think about what a "corporation" is, they just yell "four legs good, two legs bad" and talk about "corporate personhood," ignoring the real problems with the idea that people acting in concert (i.e. "corporate entities") should not have the same rights as people acting independently.

Comment Re:ABM systems equal escalation? (Score 1) 43

America promised not to do it and signed treaties and such. But they have now changed their minds. Seems pretty obviously untrustworthy to anyone who isn't a shill or has an ounce of common sense.

The ABM treaty had withdrawal provisions, and the US exercised them. It's not untrustworthy, and saying so probably indicates the person doing so is either "a shill, or [doesn't have] an ounce of common sense." They could also simply be uninformed and wearing their ignorance as a badge of honor, YMMV.

Comment Re:Advertised as unlimited, yes (Score 1) 410

I still have the unlimited plan for myself and my daughter. This month I used 14.5 GB and my daughter used 7GB so it looks like we will be left alone. But on my bill is states " Unlimited Plan" in several places online and on paper bill. Just saying .......

a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.

So no, they aren't advertising "unlimited" anything.

Comment Re:Sue them for FRAUD (Score 1) 410

The problem lies in that they are selecting which users to disconnect based on their data usage, so they are explicitly discriminating against users based on their usage of an unlimited plan. If they cut off ALL unlimited plans, that would be a non-discriminatory act.

It's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against your customers. "Heavy bandwidth user" is not a protected class that invokes various laws designed to protect the marginalized.

Comment Re:If they didn't want unlimited use (Score 1) 410

This is more akin to having a contract with an $8 Chinese buffet so you can get all you can eat for $120/mo. You then go to eat there every day so you end up eating there for $4 every day. The restaurant can't just break the contract because they didn't expect you needed to eat every day.

They're not breaking the contract. That's what everyone seems to be missing. The contract has ended. Many contracts have a "month to month" provision that says "at the end of this contract, we continue with the same terms unless one party decides not to." In the case of heavy users, Verizon is deciding not to.

There is nothing unethical or illegal in play here. VZW has decided these users are not worth catering to, and elected not to continue the relationship under the existing terms. This isn't even a stupid "we reserve the right to change the contract whenever we want to whatever we want" EULA bullshit. It's simply one party saying "we want out of this."

Comment Re:It is not unlimited. (Score 2) 410

Your latter metaphor is better, since both parties initially agreed on the dog being okay. If you were throwing loud parties, which you were explicitly allowed to do in your initial contract, then you should kind of be able to tell said neighbors to shove it.

Except that your contract has expired, so those "original terms" are in place only upon the goodwill of both parties (no pun intended). If one of those parties (the landlord) decides that making complaints from the neighbors go away is worth more than your continued tenancy, then no, you shouldn't be able to tell someone to shove it.

Are they still offering unlimited plans? Because this whole stupid thing was caused by them calling it that in the first place; now we're just looking at debris left over from that initial bad decision.

No, they're not. These are people who originally had "unlimited" plans but have been month-to-month customers since VZW discontinued those (and who VZW has elected to allow to remain grandfathered). VZW is now saying, "use what you want, but if you exceed this amount we will not renew your sweetheart deal" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Comment Re:If they didn't want unlimited use (Score 1) 410

Certainly Verizon has the right to change the terms on grandfathered month-to-month plans whenever they see fit. I believe the issue is that they're doing so while continuing to call the plan Unlimited If they instead simply transferred all their Unlimited* plans to a newly created "100GB Bargain" plan, then there would be far less justification for calling them out. No doubt many would still call it a jerk move, but it would be an *honest* jerk move.

The plan actually IS unlimited. They've also defined a number they consider "reasonable" (whether or not it is so is immaterial) and said if you exceed this number, we will cease doing business with you, but if you used 1TB of data this month, they would not charge you an overage.

While analogy is always suspect, look at it this way: You go to the local Chinese Buffet which is "all you can eat for $8.95" and proceed to eat enough food to fill a small SUV. The cashier politely charges you the $8.95 and asks you to never return.

That's what we're talking about. You had all you can eat, but you're not welcome back.

Comment Re:Sue them for FRAUD (Score 3, Informative) 410

Verizon actually are NOT advertising their plans as unlimited--that's exactly the point here, the people involved are grandfathered users from a time when Verizon DID advertise such a thing (largely before 4G deployments were of real size). What it looks like here is they are telling "unlimited" users, "if you use more than 100GB we're not going to do business with you under these terms." Given that 100% of these users are out of contract (that's how they're still on unlimited plans--they haven't signed a new contract) there's no legal problem here--Verizon will just terminate their service if the user doesn't switch plans.

Comment Re: Man, animation must _really_ be evil then. (Score 1) 302

They did a remake in the 90s. I don't remember everyone in the cast, but it had Jack Lemmon, Geroge C. Scott, Courtney B. Vance, James Gandolfini, Tony Danza (that was was a bit of a WTF, but he wasn't bad), and some other people you'd recognize. The biggest problem with the movie is that it was really just a remake, completely faithful to the original with minimal changes. That said, it was a solid effort and I prefer it to the original (probably because the actors are closer to my generation).

Comment Re:Barn door? (Score 5, Insightful) 212

Ironically, this complete breakdown was caused by the threat of terrorism driving a "necessity" for an Orwellian solution.

This has been going on far longer than that. Terrorism is just the excuse de jure to further expand the assault on your rights. Before that (and actually concurrently) it's the war on drugs and child molesters. There's also currently the SJW war on the first amendment (with the liberal types who should be screaming loudest in protest jumping on the bandwagon and yelling "yee-haw!"). Before that it was the hippies and the black panthers. Before that it was the commies. Before that it was nazis. Before that it was the Great Depression.

Blaming the excuse de jure is just playing into the hands of those out to take your rights away (whatever their motives). As the GP noted, "compromise" has already happened... over and over. "Compromise" is a code word for "we'll be back later."

Slashdot Top Deals

MATH AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX! Please, don't drink and derive. Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving