Comcast is being sued for allegedly limiting bandwidth to file-sharing applications. Verizon recently settled a similar suit over its "unlimited" data plan.
If you notice, however, on
the Verizon commercials there’s a disclaimer that says, “Some restrictions apply.” So
when you get to the store, and YOU ACTUALLY READ THE CONTRACT before you sign
it, it says that there are certain types of data (mp3s, streaming media, etc.)
to which the “unlimited” moniker doesn’t apply.
So does this constitute fraud…when they say “unlimited” but don’t
mean “unlimited”? Would they be off the hook if they had simply chosen a
different term?
In the case of Comcast, they’re not blocking or limiting any particular
type of activity. They’re merely throttling bandwidth on connections that are
consuming a disproportionate amount thereof, in order to leave some bandwidth
available to the rest of their subscribers. In their ads they promise “speeds up to [whatever]”, and “blazing
download speeds”. In the first case there’s an implication that a certain speed
is possible but not guaranteed. The meaning of the second is highly subjective,
so there’s no way one person can say he wasn’t getting what he was promised. To
a former dial-up user 100 kbps is “blazing”.
Where does the responsibility of the consumer fall in this case? At what point does the consumer have a responsibility to know what he or she is getting into before they sign a contract? If you go to the store under the pretense that you're signing up for an "unlimited" plan, but upon reading the contract find out that it's not really unlimited, what have you lost? How have your rights been violated? You've given up some of your time, sure, but our time is the price we pay in the name of due diligence and responsible behavior. Where do we draw the "false advertising" line?
Here's the first installment in my list of stupid arguments I've heard regarding government, law, economics, etc.
I've talked to a number of people who say they have no problem with people immigrating to the U.S. in order to build a better life, but fervently believe that "they should have to do it legally!"
Why? So that they're "on the hook" to pay taxes? Everyone should share in the burden of taxation equally?
What other "benefit" could possibly be provided to anyone by the legal immigration process? Specifically, what benefit does it proved to those of us who are natural-born citizens? Are we in any way guaranteed of anything positive simply because someone has been put through what is certainly an expensive, lengthy, frustrating, and most likely humiliating bureaucratic process?
Of course, I don't know for sure that the immigration process is all of those things, but it's safe to assume. Otherwise, why isn't every immigrant pursuing it?