This is what you get when you strip away the market regulation. Those folks talking about market regulation usually mean to get out of the way of ones that affect corporations in an adverse manner and leave the ones in place that benefit corporations.

Which leads to these sorts of situations. There's no reason why America, at least as far as major cities goes, can't be up there with the rest of the leaders, we just chose not to let the government get involved and are suffering the consequences.

Telecom stuff is a bit different, because Bell used to have a monopoly over almost the entire country, and there were huge antitrust suits decades ago to break them up and prevent anyone from getting that sort of dominance over the market ever again. Since then telecom regulations have gotten more and more involved and complicated... which mixed with the huge lobbying power that the (still) huge telecom companies have, makes the entire thing a humongous mess.

Basically, by law you will have more than one option, but it might not be a "viable" option, and you might have ONLY ONE alternative, as hedwards apparently does. Different states tend to handle it differently, also, adding another layer of complexity.

Last post:

However, people who do experience difficulties are more than welcome to express their grievances. Just how justifiable they are depends on, among other things, just how far they've gone to try resolve their issues.

This persons opinion can be useful to people who are in similar situations.

It reminds me of myself complaining about this "idiot" who reviewed a network cable but because he didn't like the yellow colour, decided to rate it as low. I remember my rather more intelligent friend reminding me that his opinion is still valid for people who concern themselves over the colour of a network cable.

How can something be "more" false? It's either false or it isn't. It's also a bit of a strawman, because I could say "most people smoke, so it must be good." which is provably false when concerning health.

Also basing sentiment on quantity doesn't enough information to effectively access the quality of Steam (or a product). A lot of people might be using it but would rather not for various reasons but they don't have a viable alternative.

Sure, it might 'suck' for those who can't play it, but that's their opinion and it's up to you whether you care about it or not. (And yes, I agree it's a stupid position.)

No one has concluded this. Neither is Gabe Newell an authority on this subject.

A lot of people believed the Earth was flat.
A lot of people believed slavery was justifiable.
A lot of people drink excessive amounts of alcohol.
More...

Edit: cleaned up a little.

30+ million active accounts agree with me and disagree with you.

Actually, they didn't.

Not every Steam account was made by a person that likes Steam or considers it even good. Many people only use those accounts for those games that require it and nothing else. Also there are a lot of accounts created for the sole purpose of stealing other accounts or hoarding gifts.

so all those poor people are forced to use a system they inherently dislike. oh no, how tragic.

come on. yes, 30 million active accounts doesn't equal 30 million unique accounts or 30 million happy customers, but Steam would never have become as popular as it is if the majority of its users hadn't been happy with it. that's just common sense.

Awesome, thanks for the link. Although it seems to imply that only the educated were aware of this during the early 19th century:

"there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now)

I shall have to investigate further when I have the time,
Cheers.

I never said it was a tragedy just that some people accept the Steam requirement but that doesn't mean they agree with you just by having an Steam account. You keep trying to speak for everybody and take offense when somebody points it out, just accept the point and chill.

Economic laws have nothing to do with what people believe. Deal with it. Or educate yourself.

All your contrarguments go around "Steam can't be considered good, because some people dislike it" is flawed in any way. It's clear you never ran a business (even lemonade stand) in your entire life.

Im done :)

That's quite some hostility.
Also there's no need for ad hominem attacks if you can't understand my premise.

My entire point was to try explain that just because you have an opinion does not give you the right to shove it down everyone's throat as if it's the only truth on the matter.

Some people like Steam, some don't. Each party has their own reasons and that is that.
Just because you think Steam is great (or bad) does not give you the right to force it onto others as if you're the only one who's correct.

I know I'm repeating myself here, and perhaps there is a language barrier, but I hope my point is clear.

PS: An amusing side note is that the entire model of Free Market Monetary Economics is based on a core tenant which is described as the "Invisible Hand" as proposed in "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. So I find it hard to understand that Monetary Economics has nothing to do with belief as it's based on it.

As I so often point out (and it is subsequently ignored) all the shit you like about Steam has fuck all to do with the DRM. In fact, many services have offered the same things in the past without a storefront/DRM scheme. They've all had varying levels of success, but the fact remains, if you like Steam you don't like the DRM, you like the other stuff.

Also, there is absolutely a better place for 4 person co-op, consoles are generally better at this.
Yeah, dude, they have Walmarts nearly fucking everywhere. A lot of the US is still stuck on dial up and there's a lot of people that have cut their internet to try and save money. So yes, you're alienating people who might become big fans and also become big purchasers of your products when their economic circumstances change.
The internet is full of stories of people that do, especially people deployed in the military.
We already gave a couple billion to the big telecoms and cable operators and they simply pocketed the cash (with nary a congressman saying shit, I might add), given how proudly most of our congressmen proclaimed they didn't understand any of the "technical" concerns when they were brought up by opponents of PIPA/SOPA (including concerns raised by the Department of Homeland Security) I wouldn't hold my breath for them doing anything about it, they don't care, they don't understand, and they're far more concerned about making sure a super-PAC doesn't blindside them during their re-election campaign than changing any of the first two issues.
kreeveek, several people have called bullshit on this already, so put up a source or can it. It's simply bullshit.

They use Steam, no one actually cares about that, it's offensive, however, for him to lie about the fact that they do use DRM, as if we are too fucking stupid to notice. Half that interview was about Magicka so saying "we don't use DRM" and then hiding behind the fact that in house games possibly don't (haven't verified myself) is asinine and, frankly, I find it insulting that he thinks we're too dumb to notice.

We don't care that they use Steam, we care that they lie to our faces about it and act like we're too dumb to notice or too addicted to care.
Mobile connections are on a carrier basis and usually have bandwidth caps of around 250MB - 2GB per month. They cost half what cable broadband does and are way slower. They are no kind of deal, they are something you buy when you literally have no other choice.
And often, this is shit like bridges. Literally there are people who'd rather see a 100 year old bridge fall down than pay a 5 dollar surtax on their vehicle license fees (so 5 dollars every year or two) because "I don't use it." What a bunch of fucking tools.
You're misunderstanding the critics' job, their job is to evaluate it as a piece of cinema, as a piece of cinema Avatar is actually awful shit, a poorly executed Dances with Wolves dressed up with a lot of special effects and explosions (as if the special effects are what made Dances with Wolves good in the first place). That is not to say Avatar is not fun to watch, it generally will be for many people. It's still a shitty piece of film, just like the average Jason Statham movie, simply happens to be fun to watch.

Enjoying something is not the only reason people do something. No one "enjoys" the shopping experience at Walmart, they go their for prices and convenience. You might find very soon that Steam was the Walmart of DD services and that the new players kick their ass and take their lunch money because really all Steam had going for it was low prices and rapid, early expansion (ironically just like Walmart). That might not happen, time will tell, but it's simply facetious to claim that people must like Steam because they use it.

I think you mean fallacious :)