Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My friend, there are very few things that we can describe precisely, from a legal standpoint or even for technical specs. It's all about "ranges". And the higher the precision and the guarantee, the higher the price, or the converse. Which was my point, in case I couldn't manage to make it clear enough even when putting it next to something an average person could relate to. There's leeway built into any legal or technical framework and the contract terms should follow.

Your "precisely defined and measured" SATA3 6 Gbit/s interface never delivers the 6.000Gbps to you by design (8b/10b encoding). So are all SSDs and motherboards in breach? SSDs rarely hit any of the advertised speed. By comparison their endurance is defined far clearer for the consumer.

Whether it's an SSD or an internet connection they come with clear predefined conditions that are legal* and the customer agrees to. Everything else is high consumer expectations meeting low consumer willingness to pay, or even to understand the relationship.

*Of course there are plenty of illegal and abusive clauses but giving a stated 900Mbps average speed with a 1Gbps contract, or selling an SSD with stated low DWPD don't really fit that description.



Don't shift the goalposts. You started from a very broad claim:

> Why is the same so unacceptable when it comes to a product or service you pay for?

...and now you are talking about "ranges".

Datacenters and ISPs for commercial use can provide very detailed SLAs.

Consumer ISPs refuse to publish metrics or have 3rd party services monitor them to create accountability.

They refuse to provide the most basic SLAs and refuse to adopt any user-friendly quality rating.


Meh:

> The one caveat is that today all ISPs advertise their plans as "up to" a certain speed very prominently in all marketing material.

I literally started how describing something as "up to" [ostensibly a range] is not outright misleading, if at all. It was also strictly speaking of marketing material and how well you can convey info in one banner.

Seems you're not a stranger of moving goalposts and dodging question. You're selectively arguing some of my points, while so elegantly avoiding others because "oh that's different". Which is a very immature way of pretending to have a meaningful conversation, and a good way of hinting you have no counter for that one.

You're doubling down on your misconceptions. Whatever "they" do it's because it's legal. And I'll be blunt: your definition of what is moral and what things should mean is irrelevant. If you want to be right at any cost you can just keep inventing personal definitions to apply to others but not to you because "that's different".

I made my point at quite some length. If that didn't do it, nothing will.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: