Brad Ideas - Internet - Comments

A couple of stores near

Eric Fischer — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:54:08 -0700

A couple of stores near Rockridge BART do have train arrival time signs now. I hope more will pick up the idea.

eBay Buyer's Responsibilty

MERMAIDMONKEY — Sun, 25 May 2008 08:07:40 -0700

Brad, we respectfully disagree. An eBay buyer's responsiblity doesn't end after payment. Things can go wrong on the payment,commmunications and much more. Let me unravel the mystery for you from a Platinum PowerSeller's perspective:

1. DID THE BUYER PAY ON TIME? Prompt payment is a buyer's responsiblity. If the payment was late, perhaps the seller had to file an unpaid item report. Incidentally, all sellers should file this report, but it does set them up for risk of neutral or feedback. If the buyer gets enough unpaid item strikes or does not respond to the unpaid item strike, the seller can get the feedback score removed.

2. DID THE BUYER PAY USING THE CORRECT FUNDS? DID THE FUNDS CLEAR? Perhaps the buyer sent a Western Union money order, though the seller's terms stated that only a U.S.P.S. Money Order would be accepted. U.S.P.S. money orders are fast and easy to cash. There are a myriad of fraud problems on money orders. What's more, buyer error can cause problems for the seller if the amount in words is not the same as the dollar amount (this is difficult to follow up on if there is no address of the bank on the check itsef). Funds may also not clear if the money order mis-spells the name of the recipient or if the date is incorrect, among other issues. If the money order was invalid for whatever reason it is difficult to recover funds.

3. DID THE BUYER PROVIDE A FALSE OR FRAUDULENT PAYMENT? On a money order, did the client pay with Canadian, New Zealand or Australian dollars for an item sale specified in U.S. dollars? (Incidentally, New Zealand uses the Dollar, in a decimal system.) Is the money order worthless and fraudulent? This may take weeks for the seller to discover.

4. DID THE CLIENT REVERSE THE FUNDS OR DID THE BANK REVERSE THE FUNDS? Bank reversals happen, for example, when a buyer is overdrawn on the account. Chargebacks happen when the buyer claims s/he did not authorize the transaction. This may happen when the name on the buyers statement does not match the eBay ID of the seller and so the buyer does not recognize the transaction when it appears on statements. Whatever the reason, chargebacks and bank reversals cause agony for sellers who have already paid the shipping and released the goods -- who are now spending hours to recover the funds.

5. DID THE BUYER PROVIDE ACCURATE AND UPDATED CONTACT INFORMATION? False or missing contact information is a leading concern for sellers who may not be able to reach the buyer or fufill the contractual obligation. False or Missing Contact Information is also a reason for dismissal on eBay -- and sellers should try this option whenever possible.

6. DID THE CLIENT REQUEST SHIPMENT TO AN UNCONFIRMED ADDRESS? Sellers are required to send to the location specified in the contract. If a buyer requests another address, activity may be fraudulent, but worse yet, the seller may suffer an unwarranted negative or neutral because of the buyers indescretion on policy.

7. DID THE BUYER READ THE DESCRIPTION ACCURATELY? A buyer can give the seller a negative because they are unhappy with the size, color (e.g. "bigger or smaller than expected") -- even if the information is listed accurately in the description. A picture may appear to make an item look orange, but if the listing clearly states this "picture looks orange, but it is actually cherry red." then why should the seller suffer a negative if the buyer didn't bother reading the information in the listing? This my friend, is unfair!

8. IF THE ORDER WENT WRONG, DID THE BUYER GIVE THE SELLER THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AMENDS? How did the buyer conduct himself/herself after the sale. Is s/he reasonable? Did s/he allow the benefit of time? Firing off a negative without the opportunity to first make things right is patently unfair. Sellers occassionally goof in not shipping the correct order (or on a description because s/he used a template), but in the end if the seller does the right thing the buyer should have a heart and forgive. (TO ERR IS HUMAN, TO FORGIVE DEVINE!)

9. DOES THE BUYER HAVE A HABIT OF COMPLAINING? Sellers should be warned of serial complainers. Documenting serial complainers would go a long way to thwart fraudulent claims. Currently eBay does not have a system in place to protect sellers from serial complainers. And for newbies, complaints are often a result of not being educated with regards to the transaction. Incidentally, eBay has no vested interest in educating buyers as decreasing the feedback score benefits eBay in that it will pay fewer PowerSeller discounts. A buyer can give bad feedback just because they had a bad day! We received a negative from a buyer who broke up with her boyfriend -- she was kind enough to use the Mutual Feedback Withdrawal process to remove her unwarranted remark. Sellers today do not have such an option.

EBAY HAS A RESPONSIBLITY TO EDUCATE BUYERS:

>> buyers often don't know they have a contractual obligation to pay -- that's because the rest of the internet world has shopping carts (and Amazon goes one step further with wish lists). Shopping carts allow buyers time to think about the purchase. Buyers sometimes want to renege the sale and can't. As a result buyers have remorse or anger that they are forced to pay for something they no longer want. Why should the seller suffer a neutral or negative because the buyer goofed up? We've had numerous buyers tell us their under age child navigated eBay and purchased. It's a buyers responsiblity to hold the eBay passcode from a minor child.

>> buyers often don't know that eCheck delivery takes 4-5 days to clear, and sellers are not required to mail before the payment clears. Why should the seller suffer a low Detail Seller Rating on shipping time, when the buyer selects a payment method that delays shipment?

>> buyers may pay for first class or media mail and yet expect priority mail service? Why should the seller suffer a low Detail Seller Rating on shipping time, when the buyer selects a slow shipping method?

>> buyers may not realize that seller often pays more postal costs than the buyer actually paid for? They also do not factor ink and labels, packing materials and labor into the equation. Why should the seller suffer a low Detail Seller Rating on shipping and handling charges, when the buyer paid less than the actual cost for the transaction? (Incidentally if buyers get FREE SHIPPING, they should not be able to rate the Shipping Charges as anything but a perfect DSR score.)

The list is endless of scenarios. We hope we have illustrated that buyers have a responsiblity that far surpasses their obligation to click the pay button. We feel eBay has a resonsibity to even up the playing field! eBay is not invincible and if their indescretion persists, they may face class action by the sellers who are eBay's #1 CUSTOMERS. It is eBay sellers who pay the fees and make eBay thrive. Their arrogance on this matter may be the downfall of the company in the coming years.

FALSE HOPES FOR SELLERS ON FEEDBACK: eBay has not put any tools in place for sellers to combat malicious and unwelcoming buying:
1. eBay has set procedure before policy in retroactively allowing neutrals to be counted as -1 for offenses occurring before May 19, 2008.
2. eBay given PowerSellers who have an established track record the false hope of allowing a cooling down period for buyers who wish to leave them negative or neutral feedback. We qualify and have had no such luxury.
3. eBay encourages sellers to have seller terms, but will not enforce these terms unless the items listed are bids. After the listing is closed, the transaction unwelcome buying will not be considered for removal and the buyer is free to provide negative feedback.
4. eBay Feedback has a vested interest in reducing the feedback scores of its buyers as feedback scores affect PowerSeller discounts -- lower feedback scores = fewer discounts.

Ad hominem

Davida — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:20:46 -0700

Uh, Brad: Just so you'll know, pointing out a conflict of interest isn't argumentum ad hominem.

I tire of this

brad — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:24:47 -0700

Have a nice day, Brett. You won’t take my advice to stick to real arguments and always see the self-destructive desire to bring in completely untrue ad-hominem. I have no interest in that level of discussion.

Brad, you're "saying that which is not so" again.

Brett Glass — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:59:18 -0700

The EFF has published two falsehood-ridden and inflammatory white papers, at http://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair
and http://www.eff.org/wp/detecting-packet-injection,
both of which accuse ISPs who manage their bandwidth of "forgery" and other skullduggery.

EFF has also started a project to publish software which defames ISPs who engage in traffic management; see http://www.eff.org/testyourisp.

Conveniently, these articles all state that reining in BitTorrent's bandwidth hogging behavior is somehow evil. How convenient that these falsehoods just happen to serve BitTorrent's interests and therefore yours personally.

Oh, and I note that there is no mention in your biography on the EFF site that you are a Board member of BitTorrent, Inc. So much for disclosure.

Brad, your assertions that people should look the other way and pretend not to notice your conflicts of interest ring hollow. You've been caught promoting your pocketbook. Time to resign as chair of EFF.

On all ISPs

brad — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:25:33 -0700

Well my own position is to limit regulation to the monopoly franchise players. So while I didn’t push for the current position as it does not mesh entirely with my own, I don’t think transparency requirements are a bad idea so don’t mind them being more universal. Why are you against transparency?

You misunderstand criminal law if you think what you have quoted demonstrates criminal activity. I recommend you consult with a criminal lawyer for more information.

P2P programs don’t deliberately circumvent congestion. When fetching a file from a large number of peers, it is inherent that several sockets will be opened. How would you implement it?

Wrong on many counts.

Brett Glass — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:08:16 -0700

You write:

"You can set whatever terms you like. We’re talking about the bigger debate, on the bigger ISPs."

Not true. The rules for which EFF is lobbying, and the legislation it is supporting, would apply to all ISPs regardless of size. Not that size should matter; it is not ethically any better to steal service from a large company than from a small one.

"I’ve challenged you to come up with something — anything — to demonstrate your accusation of criminal activity."

And I've quoted a law which clearly defines the activity that way.

"P2P, as a concept, does not circumvent any congestion controls."

"As a concept," maybe. But every actual P2P program tries to do it. And BitTorrent is among the worst offenders.

Brad, it's bad enough that you're not being truthful. But what's worse is that you have exposed both yourself and EFF as corrupt. EFF claims to espouse online freedom, but you would cut our users off from being online altogether -- the ultimate denial of online freedom -- simply to pad your pockets as a director of BitTorrent, Inc. And EFF is going right along with you. You've blown your credibility AND the credibility of the organization.

Figure out who to attack

brad — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:06:15 -0700

Brett, this borders on comical. You saw me speak. You’ve read my posts. I’m against network neutality legislation. Bram Cohen has come out against it as well (entirely independently from me.) So if you think I, BitTorrent or the EFF have some bias you want to attack, I remain confused. Are you secretly pro network neutrality legislation? I still don’t get what we’ve done that’s go you so in a tizzy. The EFF criticised Comcast for not being transparent and being anti-transparent on their RSTs and used a few strong terms you disagree with to describe it. As for the program chair of CFP, Eddan Katz, he just joined EFF as a staffer in the last couple of months and I’ve certainly never spoken with him about network neutrality or BitTorrent that I recall. I’ve barely met him.

Again, instead of inventing complete fabrications about conflicts, please try to focus on what’s actually wrong about my position, or EFF’s, or BitTorrent’s (none of which 3 are exactly the same as far as I know.)

More evidence of Brad's, and EFF's, conflict of interest

Brett Glass — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:30:06 -0700

Just read an interesting session description for the "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy" conference -- whose programming chairperson is on the staff of EFF and whose programming committee has at least one other EFF member on it. The description said:

"In Washington, DC, debates over network neutrality are often not only contentious, but also unhelpful, if not dishonest. In DC, panels on network neutrality often include a "pro" and a "contra," which can degenerate into a war of slogans as people talk past one another, using very different sets of facts, many of which come from dubious sources. A particularly good example is several panels held in DC on Comcast's secret, scattered blocking of p2p protocols. Comcast defenders often work from wildly different facts from everyone else. Comcast denied its actions to the public, to the press, and to nonprofit organizations repeatedly until the Associated Press's tests confirmed Comcast's actions. Then Comcast and its surrogates continued dissembling, making technical assertions that were generally discredited by technical experts testifying at the FCC's Cambridge Hearing on Feb. 25 on network management practices, yet Comcast continues making its questionable/inaccurate assertions. DC panels including a Comcast defender and opponent have largely been marred by an inability to agree on any basic, objective facts."

In other words, the description of the supposedly "unbiased" panel discussion is about as biased as can be! Also, note the multiple white papers on EFF's Web site which -- conveniently -- support BitTorrent's financial interests (and, hence, Brad Templeton's) 100%.

This should be a total embarrassment to EFF. Not only does its Chairman have an undeniable conflict of interest, but because BitTorrent and other P2P-ware actually degrades networks and hence harms free speech, the group is going directly against the principles it claims to hold dear to favor Brad's personal pocketbook. This completely blows both Brad's credibility and the EFF's credibility. It also does a lot of damage to the credibility of the conference. This blatant cronyism and corruption is amazing. It's a total sellout to corporate interests.

I am totally with you on

Andreas — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:46:09 -0700

I am totally with you on this point. I've been dreaming for local neighbourhood networks for more than ten years now, and still they don't show up. But the problem isn't really the cables, in a time of wireless networking, the local concept still doesn't take off - and I think it's mainly for security reasons. As soon as you open up a network for unknown people around you, everybody using it has to trust everybody else on this network a lot. Because there is no such thing as a completely secured network. I've been living in a dorm with local network connection to almost 5000 other students, and as happy as I was about the speed and the opportunities, I also heard about cases of stolen diploma thesis, malicious harddisk deleting, and the like. Agreed, this can happen on the internet, too, but on a smaller network, with no ISP giving basic security control, the chances seem to be much higher.

But lately some thing called DLan has come to my notice, that uses already installed copper cable for highspeed networking - maybe it is strong enough for reaching your neighbours houses, too, so you need just some good routers and some kind of token ring structure for data transmission, in order to get local networks without digging up the garden in the yards.

My thoughts on liberated connectivity (internet access 3.0) and a wireless version can be found here: http://thoughtsnessays.blogspot.com/2007/08/open-web-liberate-connectivi...

Brett, as Brad said put up or shut up!

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:24:41 -0700

If it is illegal to share files using a P2P client, either take it to court of law and prove it or show case history. don't just waddle around. Your methods might fly in the boonies, it won't in the silicon valley. If doing business is unprofitable, quit, stop whining about it.

In more bad news Virgin

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:32:12 -0700

In more bad news Virgin Media is trialling a scheme where they're chopping customers bandwidth down to near dialup speeds from 11 in the morning to 12 at night. They plan to roll this out nationally across the UK within the next few months. The excuse is torrents and service providers like the BBC are nuking their capacity but it just looks to me like the usual lack of forward planning by a CEO who just wants a quick way to raise earnings. If other ISP's were a one click option away or the people owned the network I'm pretty sure they'd fold in a heartbeat.

Not yet

brad — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:47:54 -0700

But when you start mass producing stuff it gets cheaper, and people work harder on making it robust for end users, more plug and play. You get equipment that adapts when the medium changes characteristics. You get a lot of things we don’t see now.

But there is a huge difference in what you get when you let people at the endpoints play with what they put on, and you let vendors create whatever they like to sell to customers, and you let tinkerers experiment than what you get when you have a provider and that’s all you have. Providers, especially monopoly providers, just think differently than customers and tinkerers. Their motives are different, their drives are different.

The innovation at the ends wins if you let it.

Now we could have gotten a lot of this with copper too, if the ilecs hadn’t had their own conflicts of interest. But at this point, if you were laying down conduits on the street, you would lay down glass, and I suspect glass will be a good thing to have under the street for a modestly long time — aeons in networking time. We’ll come up with something we want more than fiber in the 2020s, but by then we’ll have cheap robots to scurry down tunnels or crawl over poles and put the new new thing inside.

What colour glass?

Paul O — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:36:55 -0700

Not all fiber optic cable is created equal, and it does make a difference to the network engineering.

Sure, very local networks can be built on a communal basis, but once you're travelling more than a few hundred feet you need to start engineering your network, and that usually means co-ordinating the link loss with the launch power and amplifiers: if the dark fiber provider adds a splice because the fiber got cut, it can affect the network engineering. Or worse, the fiber provider mis-connected your glass and blew up your Very Expensive 1550nm optical receiver. And the location opportunities for amplifiers can also be limited - especially if you're buying dark glass "to a major switching point".

For these (and related) reasons it's usually simpler to buy a lit wavelength (sharing the network engineering headaches with other users of that fiber), or to buy bandwidth capacity.

Dedicated strand fiber networks can be built, and should be encouraged, but it's not a game for the faint of heart.

What are you, some kinda troublemaker?

Jeff (no, the other one) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:13:28 -0700

Good points (big bad business, indeed).

Here in Jesusland (Alabama), we have many poverty-riddled areas that could greatly benefit from the "glass roots".

Wonder if we could get the Native American tribes to use their sovereign status (and casino properties) and develop wireless access, sort of the way this D. Hendricks guy wanted to...?

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.01/hendricks.html