Do data caps punish the wrong users [AKA customers]?

Data caps, therefore, are a very crude and unfair tool when it comes to targeting potentially disruptive users. The correlation between real-time bandwidth usage and data downloaded over time is weak and the net cast by data caps captures users that cannot possibly be responsible for congestion. Furthermore, many users who are “as guilty” as the ones who are over cap (again, if there is such a thing as a disruptive user) are not captured by that same net.

In conclusion, we state that policies honestly implemented to reduce bandwidth usage during peak hours should be based on better understanding of real usage patterns and should only consider customers??? behavior during these hours; their behavior when the link isn???t loaded cannot possibly impact other users??? experience or increase aggregation costs. Furthermore, data caps as currently implemented may act as deterrents for all users at all times, but can also spur customers to look for fairer offerings in competitive markets.

Setting aside the questionable desirability of punishing any customer, these facts seem to suggest it’s much more about faux scarcity and margin than any of the transparent excuses and demonisation of some customers.

Court OKs Private Seizure of Domain Names Which Allegedly Sold Counterfeit Goods–Chanel, Inc. v. Does

The relief granted by the court is extraordinary in its scope, and includes:

– an injunction against the defendants prohibiting them from using any Chanel marks or selling any Chanel products;

– an injunction against the top-level domain name registry, directing it to change the registrar of record for the domain names to GoDaddy (!);

– an injunction telling GoDaddy to change the DNS data for the domain names so the domain names resolve to a site where a copy of the case documents are hosted (servingnotice.com/sdv/index.html);

– authorization for Chanel to enter the domain names into “Google’s Webmaster Tools” and cancel any redirection of the domain names;

– an order requiring Google, Bing, Yahoo, Facebook, Google+, and Twitter to “de-index and/or remove [the domain names] from any search results pages.”

Chanel is required to post a bond in the amount of $20,000.

Unbe-fucking-lievable

Researcher???s Video Shows Secret Software on Millions of Phones Logging Everything | Threat Level | Wired.com

The video shows the software logging Eckhart???s online search of ???hello world.??? That???s despite Eckhart using the HTTPS version of Google which is supposed to hide searches from those who would want to spy by intercepting the traffic between a user and Google.

Cringe as the video shows the software logging each number as Eckhart fingers the dialer.

???Every button you press in the dialer before you call,??? he says on the video, ???it already gets sent off to the IQ application.???

Way overboard.

comScore Releases October 2011 U.S. Online Video Rankings

the
comScore Video Metrix service showed that 184 million U.S. Internet users watched online video content in October for an average of 21.1 hours per viewer.

Other notable findings from October 2011 include:

  • 86.2 percent of the U.S. Internet audience viewed online video.
  • The duration of the average online content video was 5.5 minutes, while the average online video ad was 0.4 minutes.
  • Video ads accounted for 14.9 percent of all videos viewed and 1.4 percent of all minutes spent viewing video online.

Wonder how many received this on a desktop PC.

A Facebook Smartphone ??? Why?

At the end of last week???s Monday Note, I briefly wondered about the rumored Amazon smartphone. Would it follow the Kindle Fire strategy: Pick Android???s lock and sell the device at or below cost in order to lubricate the wheels of Amazon???s e-commerce of tangible and intangible things?

This week, we have the rebirth of another story: the Facebook phone. All Things D, the Wall Street Journal???s site dedicated to??? All Things Digital, aired a series of posts focused on Facebook???s hypothetical jump into the smartphone fray. Given the site???s reputation for reliable sources and real writing, this must be more than idle speculation floated for pageviews.

But what???s going on? Why would Facebook ??? or Amazon ??? create its own smartphone?

Yet another service, yet another device. Used to be the goal was to own the consumer, now the consumer believes they own you…

SABAM Knocked Out at the ECJ

43. The protection of the right to intellectual property is indeed enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (???the Charter???). There is, however, nothing whatsoever in the wording of that provision or in the Court???s case-law to suggest that that right is inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected.

Filter that.