site Search:


Home Reviews Tools Forums FAQs Find Service ISP News Maps About  
 
   
story category
Monday Morning Links
by Revcb Monday 27-Aug-2012 tags: broadbandbits
• Apple’s wins big in patent war, Samsung must pay $1.05B damages [bizjournals.com]
• Does High Speed Broadband Increase Economic Growth? [forbes.com]
• The FCC Scores a Hat Trick of Errors on Internet Regulation [forbes.com]
• Google, Wi-Fi Snooping, and the Ever-Shifting 'Creepy' Line [businessweek.com]
• Sprint Could Win The Unlimited Data Battle [seekingalpha.com]
• TPP Creates Legal Incentives For ISPs To Police The Internet. What Is At Risk? Your Rights. [eff.org]
• FCC eyes tax on Internet service [thehill.com]
• Unlimited unnecessary? NPD report finds average smartphone data use is below 2 GB [fiercewireless.com]
• Torching California’s Broadband Future: Why Your State is Next [wired.com]
• US IPTV operators want to exploit multiscreen [broadbandtvnews.com]

Forums >

Monday Morning Links

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Linklist
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5

RE:The FCC Scores a Hat Trick of Errors on Internet Regulati

Very good article explaining how the FCC is making the wrong call on regulation just about every time. Call this the anti -"Karl Bode says regulation is good" article.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
permalink · 2012-08-27 09:16:26 · Reply to this ·

Linklist
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5

RE:FCC eyes tax on Internet service

Just another instance of government bureaucrats trying to guarantee their jobs by getting control over more and more taxpayer dollars.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
permalink · 2012-08-27 09:24:57 · Reply to this ·

JRW2
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5

Re: RE:FCC eyes tax on Internet service

Aren't we taxed enough???
permalink · 2012-08-27 12:22:22 · Reply to this ·

Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

And....

Apple will lose on appeal, considering a few things. The judge didn't allow evidence that showed Samsung had a similar looking phone before the iphone, and it was patented in Dec 2006. There was apparently a juror whose family owned a boat load of Apple stock, I am sure they weren't biased at ALL...I think things like this will hurt Apple in the appeal process. JMO.

And the court house is right down the street from Apple HQ? Yea, those residents woulndn't be biased at all with the company HQ right down the street from their house...
permalink · 2012-08-27 10:26:03 · Print · Reply to this ·

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

Re: And....

said by Cheese:

Apple will lose on appeal, considering a few things. The judge didn't allow evidence that showed Samsung had a similar looking phone before the iphone, and it was patented in Dec 2006.

Samsung sat on it too long into the discovery process. It wasn't that she just didn't allow it from the begining, it was that when Samsung introduced it, the case had progressed to the point where new discovery would happen unless there was VERY extenuating circumstances. Knowing about your own product from 6 years prior didn't fit that bill.

There was apparently a juror whose family owned a boat load of Apple stock, I am sure they weren't biased at ALL...I think things like this will hurt Apple in the appeal process. JMO.

All jurors have bias. It's whether they can set that bias aside. Also all jurors from that area are going to have friends and family that have Apple (and every other major publicly traded tech company) stock.

And the court house is right down the street from Apple HQ? Yea, those residents woulndn't be biased at all with the company HQ right down the street from their house...

Where should Apple have brought their suit? Maybe they should have gone to US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas where patent troll cases are almost always filed at. San Jose is where Apple is based. Samsung has a division based there as well and while that division wasn't involved in the lawsuit, Samsung had an interest there locally. Venue was never challenged as being improper. This is probably one of the largest cases that I can recall where the venue actually seems to fit the companies and what the case is about rather then court shopping to try and gain the best legal advantage.
permalink · 2012-08-27 13:44:49 · Print · Reply to this ·
zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw

Cell Phone Data Use

I think caps for cell phones (or even caps for home broadband) will average lower than if there were no caps.

I have 1gb of data/month on my cell phone. I'm very cognisant of how much data I'm using. I try not to stream to many videos. I only run updates (and other bandwidth heavy stuff) when I'm connected to my home WiFi connection.

The existence of caps artificially creates a lowers averages because people are purposely trying to stay below the caps.

Give it a year and compare the averages of the cap-free accounts to the carriers that are still using caps. I think you're going to see a pretty big gap.
permalink · 2012-08-27 18:31:29 · Print · Reply to this ·
Forums > Monday Morning Links

Tuesday, 21-May 17:55:36 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.