 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Enforcement of rules in all service bills anyway quote:
As an added bonus, users who don't pirate can look forward to their bills going up as ISPs pass on the cost of this new system to their subscribers.
That is just part of the cost of doing business with a service provider. My cable bill is higher because cable companies must police those who steal cable access. My electric bill is higher because the electric company must police those who bypass their electric meters. My water bill is higher because the water company has to police those who bypass their water meters.
So, my ISP bill will be higher because the ISP must police those who steal content illegally. That is all just part of doing business in a society where some customers are crooked.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
|
|
| Apples and oranges. Cable, electric, and water theft causes the prices to go up because they are the ones having the product stolen from them.
Having your ISP bill go up in this context is equivalent to the EPA lobbying to have your water company install filters on everyone's connection to monitor for water health and contaminants and then just send EPA the log files, essentially telling the water company to do the EPA's job for them.
Yes I know the water company monitors their system already but its the closest example I could come up with given your examples.
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" |
|
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:That is just part of the cost of doing business with a service provider. My cable bill is higher because cable companies must police those who steal cable access. My electric bill is higher because the electric company must police those who bypass their electric meters. My water bill is higher because the water company has to police those who bypass their water meters.
That's not an accurate comparison. You're referencing measures taken to protect their own product/service.
ISPs have no real attachment to copyright protection, other than changes in legislation (forcing them to be attached). This is property that belongs to a 3rd party. The ISP is simply providing connectivity to the user that is subject to the said copyright abuse.
An accurate comparison to what you stated would be an ISP spending time/money to police those who steal internet access. |
|
| reply to Linklist
I wish I went through life with your blinders. It must be nice to be oblivious to all the corruption and greed out there. Ignorance is bliss... |
|
|
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Linklist
the MAFIAA should have to pay for all these upgrades. it is their product they are worried about. Why should an ISP care? Bandwidth is Bandwidth, pirate or legal movement of entertainment is all the same to the routers.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist: quote:
As an added bonus, users who don't pirate can look forward to their bills going up as ISPs pass on the cost of this new system to their subscribers.
That is just part of the cost of doing business with a service provider. My cable bill is higher because cable companies must police those who steal cable access. My electric bill is higher because the electric company must police those who bypass their electric meters. My water bill is higher because the water company has to police those who bypass their water meters. So, my ISP bill will be higher because the ISP must police those who steal content illegally. That is all just part of doing business in a society where some customers are crooked. People cant steal cable anymore w/ digital. So your bill is not higher from theft. Everyone used to steal Directv and that also no longer happens.
All that can be done is they either A. have to hack the cable companies servers to activate a box or B. clone 1 paid for box/cable card to use for multple boxes.
Both situations are easily detectable by the cable company with automated means.
Customers do not want to pay the ISP to do the RIAA/MPAA dirty work and they should not have to. There is not benefit to the customer or ISP for doing this.
Also remember nothing is being stolen. People are copying 1s and 0s through links that go through multiple countries and may even leave the planet earth. ISP have no reason to get invovled.
If I were a large investor in one of these ISPs I would be really, really pissed at how they are wasting money. |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to BlueC
said by BlueC:An accurate comparison to what you stated would be an ISP spending time/money to police those who steal internet access.
No, it would be one where you wave a magic wand and make an exact duplicate of the cable service, electricity, water all while not removing the original and allowing it to be used exactly as intended.
Reality and human rights are always trumped by hand waving and magic.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to sandman_1
It's sad it's come to this, but... down there, under the posts, the action link, then you pick ignore. Life on the front page is 100 times better without the industry shills. And don't doubt for a second that they are not that. They get a range of topic to hover over and spread their comments around the internet daily with prepared talking points. If you roam around enough in various website comments you'll strangely see the same buzz words of the day used all over the place in a creepy sort of way.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Hargray Cable
| reply to TheHelpful1
Re: Enforcement of rules in all service bills anyway said by TheHelpful1:Having your ISP bill go up in this context is equivalent to the EPA lobbying to have your water company install filters on everyone's connection to monitor for water health and contaminants and then just send EPA the log files, essentially telling the water company to do the EPA's job for them.
Bad example because that is exactly what our water company does. They monitor all the water system wide and send the logs to the EPA to prove they are in compliance with EPA regs. »www.bjwsa.org/water/quality.html All paid for by the customers. |
|
 KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist: That is just part of the cost of doing business with a service provider. My cable bill is higher because cable companies must police those who steal cable access. My electric bill is higher because the electric company must police those who bypass their electric meters. My water bill is higher because the water company has to police those who bypass their water meters.
So, my ISP bill will be higher because the ISP must police those who steal content illegally. That is all just part of doing business in a society where some customers are crooked. Now which of those examples makes no sense what so ever? I'll give you a hint, the one where people are stealing something other than service. When you start buying into the someone else has to pay to protect my business model you are part of the problem.
When the entertainment industry produces a quality product that is reasonably priced people will purchase it. When you punish those who purchase your product you deserve to fail.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything? |
|
Reviews:
·Shaw
| reply to BlueC
said by BlueC:That's not an accurate comparison. You're referencing measures taken to protect their own product/service.
ISPs have no real attachment to copyright protection, other than changes in legislation (forcing them to be attached). This is property that belongs to a 3rd party. The ISP is simply providing connectivity to the user that is subject to the said copyright abuse.
An accurate comparison to what you stated would be an ISP spending time/money to police those who steal internet access.
Except many ISP's are owned by the content providers. When Broadband first started up, there weren't many practical applications that needed the bandwidth other then piracy. The legal content just wasn't there.
Now piracy is grown rampant. Alot of it (especially video content) uses alot of bandwidth and is pirated.
ISP's own by cable co's or companies that offer iptv have a direct interested in stopping pirated video. Whether it be through bandwidth caps or this new 6 strike rule. |
|
| reply to BlueC
In which case the DOT should be accountable for thieves using the highways system to escape a robbery? |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Oh_No
quote:
People cant steal cable anymore w/ digital. So your bill is not higher from theft. Everyone used to steal Directv and that also no longer happens.
Yes, this is a great point and is always ignored by the 'It's Theft'ers'. There are definite examples of where companies were technologically able to reduce their claimed losses to ZERO. Any digital cable company is an example. While some erroneously argue that broadcast basic is still 'in the clear' on most systems and theft is still rampant... many companies have obtained waivers from the FCC to encrypt even the broadcast channels. Has there been a rate reduction to adjust for the no longer present 'losses'? Nope. Same thing with DirecTV, when they switched from the HU card to the P4 card and effectively eliminated piracy of their signal... where was the comparable rate drop? And when Dish Network switched to Nagra 3? Nada.
There are only a few possibilities of why this would be:
1. The cost to stop the piracy was so expensive that they just broke even (or spent more). We can eliminate this as a choice since everyone knows companies can't do anything unless there is a cost analysis somewhere saying it will increase profits. And for cable companies to encrypt basic channels amounted to mere keystrokes on a computer... not very expensive.
2. The company decided since the people were already used to paying what they pay, there was really no reason to lower the bill. The company can just pocket the new money as additional profits and the customer will be none the wiser. While I wouldn't put this option past them, these industries are highly competitive and would pass off a major monetary savings to customers in order to beat out the competition and take their customers away. Even if the answer is partly this, it doesn't speak well of companies that harp on the idea that their customers have to pay higher prices due to theft. It makes the honest customers wonder who the real thieves are.
3. (The correct answer) There is really no loss at all. Despite the fact that this supposedly major loss of money is stopped, there is simply no additional income. This is very strange considering that if any other loss were eliminated (competition, physical theft, damages, etc.), there would be a proportional increase in profits. DirecTV claimed $1.2 Billion/year lost to piracy, why do their yearly statements not show a $1.2 billion increase since the security upgrade? They are, in fact, showing a bigger loss!
Claims that companies make are often not backed up by reality... this is a glaring example. |
|
