The difference in this case is that Comcast isn't transiting the data to some other network like a backbone does (and gets paid for), it is transiting data its own customers. Comcast's has already oversold its existing capacity by offering customers unlimited plans based on the assumption that it would actually be only a certain usage level. L3's desirable content made that assumption invalid and consumers have started using their unlimited plans more than the Comcast planed usage level. Comcast can't actually provide to customers what it promised without improvements to its network. It wants L3 to pick up the tab for expanding its network because they are, in its view, the force behind the increased usage and the reason the assumption was invalidated. That is certainly more desirably than telling shareholders and customers that it needs to lower profits or start charging more for the 'unlimited' plans they already sold in order to fund the upgrades.

Actually I doubt that the 3G version can download anything you want via 3G. The B&W version that has been rooted a long time has its 3G access is limited (on the carrier side) to only the B&N site. Rooting it doesn't let you go anywhere (with the 3G access) you couldn't go before it was rooted. I doubt they made the mistake of removing that protection in the newer version.

At least with B&N I don't think they care about exclusivity that much, at least not from the design they chose. I think they just want prime exposure for their sales app. They don't seem to really care about the free books you add from other sources. The existing store already shows free books (from Google I believe) where applicable. They present all the storage as a mass storage device and make it as easy as any MP3 player to add books to outside the store. They seem to want to make it as easy as possible to find and buy books from them, but ultimately to keep you using it hoping the convince of the built in store will win out. If you look at the B&W Nook, it was not designed with security in mind and until a recent hardware revision it was easy to just revert 1.0 and root any nook. The firmware is on a removable micro sd card you can move to another device and penetrate, that is not a design you would use if you wanted it secured. They haven't started a battle to lock out the hackers. They may not encourage them or help them, but they certainly aren't fighting them. That is probably because there isn't a downside. Rooting doesn't let you abuse the cell modem or bypass the DRM. The B&W version has been rooted for a long time and they don't seem to care if its rooted because they can still sell books to it. If poeple find a way to alter their Nook and they end up using it more without B&N having to support it or develop it then that is all the better for them.

It is necessarily insecure: At any point in time there can exist signed software in the repo which the user can install and which has known exploitable vulnerabilities. Therefore it follows that malicious code running as the user can, without root privileges, install said software and then exploit the vulnerability automatically and without the users knowledge. Its just a matter of effort to create a virus/worm that quarries for current unlatched packages and exploits them or runs in the user context again until such time as it can. Once root the policy is exploited once the policy can be used again by adding a malicious, but now trusted repo so the user code can keep getting root and reinfecting in the future as needed. This is a path to turn a malicious unprivileged user exploit into a system exploit, not unlike the many IE cross-zone security problems of the past.

I'm not saying it could not have been prevent, obviously it could have. The question I'm posing is to what extent T-Mobile could have prevented it? All the problems you describe are problems internal to Danger: it was there phone design and their service falling down.

It is hard for me to blame T-Mobile for the MS/Danger server / backups failure. Danger both makes the phones and runs the service, where as T-Mobile appear to be little more than common carriers and the customer service department. It is a bit unreasonable to suggest that T-Mobile could have prevented the outage. I mean it not like they could host the data somewhere else right? Sure they could have done a much better job handling the failure after it happened, much much better, but I just don't think they could have prevented it.

According to this article Vernor won the case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars