Why Free Services From Telecoms Can Be a Problem On the Internet

HughPickens.com writes: T-Mobile said last week that it would let customers watch as many movies as they wanted on services like Netflix and HBO as well as all other kinds of video, without having it count against their monthly data plans. But the NYT editorializes that there are real concerns about whether such promotions could give telecommunications companies the ability to influence what services people use on the Internet, benefiting some businesses and hurting others. Earlier this year, the FCC adopted net neutrality rules to make sure that companies like T-Mobile, Verizon and Comcast did not seek to push users toward some types of Internet services or content — like video — and not others. The rules, which telecom companies are trying to overturn in court, forbid phone and cable companies to accept money from Internet businesses like Amazon to deliver their videos to customers ahead of data from other companies. The rules, however, do not explicitly prevent telecom companies from coming up with "zero rating" plans like the one T-Mobile announced that use them treat, or rate, some content as free.

"Everybody likes free stuff, but the problem with such plans is that they allow phone and cable companies to steer their users to certain types of content. As a result, customers are less likely to visit websites that are not part of the free package." T-Mobile has said that its zero-rating plan, called Binge On, is good for consumers and for Internet businesses because it does not charge companies to be part of its free service. "Binge On is certainly better than plans in which websites pay telecom companies to be included," concludes The Times. "But it is not yet clear whether these free plans will inappropriately distort how consumers use the Internet."

Comments

Free vs Fast Lane

[jwymanm]

Kind of similar concept and could really hurt providers not large enough or able to jump through the hurdles. If there was some kind of multi party agreed upon open platform offering for this very thing it could work out.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[unencode200x]

Indeed. I can see it hurting the smaller and regional providers. I'm no cellular expert, but wouldn't this negatively impact the load on mobile networks too, specifically cell towers and make things slower for everyone?

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[darkain]

In theory, yes. But they started with music streaming services first. Now they're doing it with video. Check the details, when this service is enabled, it forces content to 480p resolution at lower bitrates. Now, why would they want to do this? Firstly, this is actually overall reducing bandwidth. Secondly, it allows them to have a very steady and predictable usage pattern of their network. Browsing web pages or doing other things online are generally very spiky between needing lots of content, then idling for a while (while the user is reading or viewing images for example). Music and videos traditionally have larger buffering windows to deal with these lag spikes in the network. Now that bandwidth consumption can more easily be predicted, it is in theory easier to deliver said bandwidth to everyone on the network (such as QoS prioritization)

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[AK Marc]

I've seen it done lots of times, and it doesn't make a difference. Zero rating data on a metered service doesn't change usage or affect the marketplace. It causes 1-5% of heavy users to switch carriers to one that makes it cheaper to use the service more, but that's all. That's what it's designed to do, and that's all it actually does.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone has to pay a million dollars for my marriage cakes, but Christians get a refund for all but $200 of that. Don't you see the problem with this?

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

To me, it means I will use my Netflix in an airport, when I never would have before. That's a change in usage patterns, it influences my choice of content providers. If another major player like HBO-Go were not included and I decided I would only keep one service: Netflix or HBO-Go, the one that is included on my cellphone plan for free has a huge competitive advantage.

Now - have you ever heard of MangoFlix? No, you haven't, because all these entrenched services have locked up deals with content providers, and now connectivity providers, making it impossibly expensive to start up a competitive service. You know, like a competitive service that actually streams a decent collection of Movies, and not just stale TV series and in-house produced content.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[AK Marc]

Now - have you ever heard of MangoFlix? No, you haven't, because all these entrenched services have locked up deals with content providers, and now connectivity providers, making it impossibly expensive to start up a competitive service. You know, like a competitive service that actually streams a decent collection of Movies, and not just stale TV series and in-house produced content.

The primary issue being the content, not the zero rating. If MangoFlix had all the content you wanted, and HBO-Go didn't, would you really pay for HBO-Go, even if it was zero-rated for data use?

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[AK Marc]

That, and checking MangoFlix after posting, MangoFlix doesn't exist, which is why I've not heard of it (or it's an online-only company with no online presence, same effect).

No small player will ever start up, much like no independent TV station will ever start up. The market is full, and there's no room left for a tiny startup.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Now - have you ever heard of MangoFlix? No, you haven't, because all these entrenched services have locked up deals with content providers, and now connectivity providers, making it impossibly expensive to start up a competitive service.

These "entrenched services" benefit from efficiencies of scale, both at the contractual and at the technical level. The same thing happens in every maturing industry. It's why Walmart is so much cheaper than your corner convenience market.

The online music and video markets are largely history; maybe someone will still figure out an angle that gives them another shot, but what Netflix, Hulu, T-Mobile, Comcast, and all the other players are doing is basically what we get, and you shouldn't expect any more startups. Now it's just about driving down prices through higher efficiency and competition between them.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

No small player will ever start up, much like no independent TV station will ever start up. The market is full, and there's no room left for a tiny startup.

My point exactly, and zero rating (of data streamed from the big providers) puts yet another hurdle in place for even medium to large startups that want to compete in a given field.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

And I thought it was about driving prices down through streaming the lowest cost content they can get their hands on.

To me, this is the real problem, the big players have carved up the field and consumers are in a like-it or forget-it position. Kinda hard to get too worked up over entertainment, but I'm afraid of what this precedent means for other types of service providers (preferential treatment of certain data....)

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[AK Marc]

It's a hurdle that nobody will trip over. I'd buy a Ferrari, but I don't have any money, and the dealership is on the other side of town. Which one of those is the bigger hurdle? Not all hurdles are equal. Most mobile data is still WiFi, from the last numbers I saw, so someone could enter without even using cellular data.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

This is closer to: gasoline is being rationed, you can only get 5 gallons a month, but if you buy this car your gas is free. Oh, and if you weren't sure already, let's spell out that the oil companies and the car manufacturer are in bed together.

Again, hard to get worked up over entertainment - and you're right about WiFi, depending on lifestyle. Right now, I only stream Netflix to my phone over WiFi - but I do travel once in awhile, and I could stream it 4G when I'm away from home, but never have because of my 3G/month bandwidth cap.

I wonder if this capless thing will apply to me since I have a Nexus 5 (no T-Mobile special-ware on it)?

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I don't understand what you're getting at. The major streaming services all offer the same content, and that content already has a monopoly based on copyright. How many companies do you need to stream The Walking Dead or Star Trek?

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

I used to rent Netflix DVDs - selection in the DVD rental world was MUCH better than streaming has ever been, and it's only about the cost licensing and willingness to pay for it.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I'm not sure whether you're complaining that Netflix streaming has less selection that Netflix DVD or what. But almost everything you want is available online, just not through Netflix. Since video distribution has gone online, there are a lot more distribution channels. For example, I believe you could rent a lot of Criterion as DVDs on Netflix, but if you want to stream it, you have to go to Hulu Plus. Ultimately, the people creating the content hold the copyright and they are going to set the prices, and they are not going to compete with themselves by going through too many distribution channels. I still don't see how you think that prevent T-Mobile from streaming certain providers with no caps is going to affect that.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[KGIII]

Do you complain that Tesla is offering free charging stations?

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure whether you're complaining that Netflix streaming has less selection that Netflix DVD or what.

They don't know what they are complaining about either. They just want to piss and moan. They've no concept of anything, no awareness of history, no insight into other technologies, no knowledge of business, and no ability to understand the little they do know. It's a trend.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[silentcoder]

Not really an accurate analogy.
It would be better to ask if he would complain if you Tesla allowed Nissan Leaf drivers to charge at their free stations alongside the Tessla drivers but charged for any other cars. There is a fundamental difference between offering your own service free and offering a free access to customers of one other company but not the rest.
Now it's arguable how bad that really is, I'm not getting into that - just adjusting your analogy to reflect the situation better.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

If there were paid charging stations all over the place, available for a broad market of vehicles, and Tesla cut an exclusive deal with the stations that they would be free only for Tesla customers - that's approaching a problem, but not quite because cost of the Tesla effectively makes cost of charging noise in the equation.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[silentcoder]

>It's why Walmart is so much cheaper than your corner convenience market.
Part of. At least as big a part is a hidden cost you don't even know you're paying. Wallmart's wages is so low that the vast majority of their workers still get poverty-relief welfare (in welfare-to-work states Wallmart is one of the biggest employers of welfare recipients).
That welfare comes from taxpayers.

Wallmart didn't reduce the price - they outsourced their wagebill to the taxpayers, you're paying the difference with your taxes - and all the people who never shop at Wallmart are forced to subsidize your savings.
If you ever wondered why a 15 dollar inflation-bound minimum wage is a good idea - there it is right there, so companies cannot outsource their wagebills to the taxpayer like Wallmart does.
Wallmart often threatens to close locations if anybody suggests doing it locally, but firstly there is no chance of that if it's done federally and secondly they have never actually made good on that threat.
In the real world even wallmart would rather make a slightly smaller profit than no profit at all.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

The criterion catalog is big, but very old. Back in the day, Netflix DVD selection closely paralleled Blockbuster retail rental selection - and they were both a superset of what was available on any given cable premium channel, release dates might have varied by a month or two from one to the other, but the deeper (5-20 year old) catalogs were very extensive. Streaming seems to have finally killed off the retail rental category, so we haven't had anything in the last few years to compare streaming to. Redbox will pop up with one or two interesting new titles a month, but nowhere near the 80%+ coverage of theater releases within 6 months to a year that Blockbuster and old-time Netflix DVD had.

Markets change, I miss the days when you could become aware of a title through whatever channel and have a better than even chance of getting ahold of it at the first retail outlet you went looking for it, maybe not on release day, but usually within less than a year.

Obligatory hat tip to the black/back channels of the internet, I assume they still offer free bootleg copies of basically everything if you take the time to hunt it down - personally, I'd rather pay $0.99, or even $3, and get it without hassle (and, going to a retail outlet _is_ a hassle), but I feel like those options are mostly gone, replaced by subscription models from near-monopoly providers (Pandora, I'm pointing at you now) who raise prices and change terms with no fear of losing subscribers to the competition, because there basically isn't any competition. Netflix still has the premium cable channels to deal with, and it's starting to fight them on their own turf (original content, etc.) Too bad they dropped the "long tail catalog" selection advantage they used to have.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they opt to do so, is this a problem? (I like your analogy better than my own - thanks.) That's what I'm getting at. What's the problem? If they're not violating a law then, well, they're kind of entitled to make these choices. We've allowed businesses to give preferential treatment since, well, forever. "Buy this and get a discount at Joe's Bait, Tackle, Tire, and Gimp Suit Shop!" If we wanted to go with telecommunications then, well, my phone company used to offer me "Free** Calls to Canada and Mexico when you buy our Long Distance Package for $19.95/mo!!!"

So long as they're not altering packet priorities then, well, I'm just not seeing a reason for the outrage.

Slashdot's being a prick. So, it's KGIII. I'm just posting as AC 'cause no matter how high my karma goes, there's an arbitrary 50 posts/day limit.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it a problem? SilentCoder, above, helped to refine my analogy (by the way). What is the problem here? What is the problem if a business gives preferential treatment to another - usually with a fee? They're not prioritizing or violating a law or even violating the spirit of the law. Seriously, I am failing to see why this is a problem or how it can even be spun into a problem.

If Verizon wants to give free, unmetered, bandwidth to Spotify (or even their own services) while *not* disrupting or limiting connections to another service then what, specifically, is the problem and why is that a problem?

ELI5 if you want. I'm just not seeing it.

(It's KGIII - there's a 50 post limit even at peak karma and I've hit that today.)

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Wallmart didn't reduce the price - they outsourced their wagebill to the taxpayers, you're paying the difference with your taxes - and all the people who never shop at Wallmart are forced to subsidize your savings.

Bullshit. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

Whether those kinds of government programs are a good idea or not is another question, but they are not subsidy to Walmart.

If you ever wondered why a 15 dollar inflation-bound minimum wage is a good idea - there it is right there, so companies cannot outsource their wagebills to the taxpayer like Wallmart does.

If you raise the minimum wage to $15/h, Walmart will only hire people that are worth $15/h, and that's not their current set of employees. In addition, they will simply automate more, and much of what they do can be automated; just look at Europe where labor costs are higher and shops and restaurants run with less staff. No matter what the law, the minimum wage is always $0.

Whatever costs they can't control that way will simply be passed on to consumers in higher prices, hurting particularly the lower income groups that shop at Walmart.

In the real world even wallmart would rather make a slightly smaller profit than no profit at all.

What exactly do you imagine Walmart's profit margins to be? Walmart has very low profit margins compared to other corporations:

https://www.aei.org/publicatio...

Walmart can't and won't reduce their profit margin; any increase in operating costs is simply passed on to customers. Since their customers are often lower income, it places an extra burden on them. So, even if your fiction of government aid to Walmart workers keeping prices low were correct, it would simply mean a wealth transfer from rich to poor (since only about 97.2% of income taxes are paid by those making more than median income, 70.2% by the top 10%), which you argue should be eliminated.

But you are right to a degree: the goal of all this hullabaloo over net neutrality and minimum wage is indeed to eliminate low profit margin, low priced, domestic, diverse companies like Walmart into the kind of high profit margin, high priced, outsourcing, privileged upper middle class company like Apple. It's disgusting that you pretend to be doing that in the name of "social justice" or "benefits to taxpayers".

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The criterion catalog is big, but very old.

You're missing the point. My point is that it isn't like the market has narrowed down, it has indeed expanded, with many more distributors providing streaming distribution and competing with each other. That is, a lot of stuff you could conveniently get from a single source like Netflix now require you to deal with many distributors.

The point is: you say you want more competition, but you really don't, because real competition means you as a customer have to think for yourself and have to deal with some inconveniences. What you want is the kind of one-stop-shopping convenience that a monopoly on distribution results in with the kind of prices that cut-throat competition results in. Sorry, but that is just not possible.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

I don't see that one-stop shopping precludes competition, I would think that a truly competitive market would include several one-stop shopping providers, perhaps WalMart and K-Mart and Target - subtly different, but basically bringing you all the same stuff with a little different spin on the marketing.

What I call the current entertainment mess is subscription lock-in fragmentation, wherein you have to buy not one, but several all subscriptions that each simultaneously give you more and less than you want, all for a price that you're loathe to pay twice per month (one to each provider), let alone the three or four times you would have to pay it to get an approximation of "one stop shopping."

At least it hasn't devolved to Sony Playstation style "entertainment" where you get to spend 30 minutes every time you turn the damn thing on just waiting for updates to load, with another forced acceptance of their latest TOS update, unless, you know, you'd rather not have any of the online features of your online console work anymore. That is certainly one way to burn time. Another is in the decoding of who has what and what are their free / ad supported / subscription plans. Bitching about it, deep in a thread that few will ever see is another way to burn time - but it is good practice in presentation of the problem.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I don't see that one-stop shopping precludes competition

No, but the diversity of customer interests probably "precludes" it.

I would think that a truly competitive market would include several one-stop shopping providers, perhaps WalMart and K-Mart and Target - subtly different, but basically bringing you all the same stuff with a little different spin on the marketing.

But Walmart, K-Mart, and Target are not one-stop shopping. For most people, they have maybe 80% of what they need, and for the rest they go somewhere else. And between them, they may have 95% of what people need, and for the rest they still need to go somewhere else. Basically, it's the same situation as with online video, except that there isn't a subscription involved.

What I call the current entertainment mess is subscription lock-in fragmentation, wherein you have to buy not one, but several all subscriptions that each simultaneously give you more and less than you want

But the individual subscriptions are dirt-cheap. And if some of them make special deals with your ISP, they get even cheaper.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

I would think that a truly competitive market would include several one-stop shopping providers, perhaps WalMart and K-Mart and Target - subtly different, but basically bringing you all the same stuff with a little different spin on the marketing.

But Walmart, K-Mart, and Target are not one-stop shopping. For most people, they have maybe 80% of what they need, and for the rest they go somewhere else. And between them, they may have 95% of what people need, and for the rest they still need to go somewhere else. Basically, it's the same situation as with online video, except that there isn't a subscription involved.

See, I was happy when Blockbuster had 80% of what I cared about, Netflix DVD had 80% of what I cared about, and the corner 0.99 VCR rental had 40% of what I cared about, covering 95% between them.

Now, Hulu has 10% of what I care about, Netflix streaming has 20% of what I care about, Redbox carries 15% - 50% of which is overlapped with the first two, the other local rental shops are out of business (and not missed), and Netflix DVD has gone down the tubes. I was already pissed with Netflix DVD back in the "good old days" because of its subscription model - it was "great value" on the months I flogged it, but averaged over long periods of time, I was ending up paying $10 a piece for DVD rentals because there are times I just don't care (and those are just the times that I want to log in, suspend my account, and generally have something else to screw with over a matter of $0.30 a day - NOT.)

What I call the current entertainment mess is subscription lock-in fragmentation, wherein you have to buy not one, but several all subscriptions that each simultaneously give you more and less than you want

But the individual subscriptions are dirt-cheap. And if some of them make special deals with your ISP, they get even cheaper.

You must like your ISP more than I like mine - in my neighborhood we actually have a choice: AT&T DSL - barely useable when it works, but with AT&T's craptacular service it only works properly half the time, or Comcast's Xfinity - with a new promotional rate every 6 months and more crap to manage... they can't just let you pay $50/month for broadband and be done with it, no, broadband by itself is $70 a month, but let us give you a $30, 40 or 50 a month bundle including a bunch of other services you don't want / won't use, then at the end of the period jack you back up to $90, 100 or 130 a month. So, with them it's a $240 a year premium to not have to manage their BS, on top of rates that are already some of the highest in the world for marginal broadband - at least their service is better than AT&T, it only took me 7 months to get a faulty (out whenever it rains) line replaced, plus another 6 to get the replacement cable buried.

In some respects, this is a "golden age" of entertainment - media is more convenient to access, as you say "dirt cheap" - if you play the games and manage the bloodsuckers along the way, with more selection and higher quality production than ever before. In other respects, movie popcorn costs more per ounce than restaurant served filet minion, movie ticket prices have inflated faster than virtually any other thing that existed 40 years ago, and if you don't manage your subscription costs carefully, you can spend $200 a month or more rather easily. I guess without all that money flowing in, we'd have fewer great movies coming out... I'm most bummed out that I don't have the free time to enjoy half of what's out there, but people keep trying to get me to pay for all of it just to get the little pieces I do want.

I see T-Mobile getting into bed with Netflix, and just feels like one more "pay for it all, we know most of you won't use it" cafeteria plan that is a killer deal for the morbidly obese. They say it's "free," can I take a pass on this wonderful thing and get my rates reduced instead?

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

they can't just let you pay $50/month for broadband and be done with it, no, broadband by itself is $70 a month, but let us give you a $30, 40 or 50 a month bundle including a bunch of other services you don't want / won't use, then at the end of the period jack you back up to $90, 100 or 130 a month. So, with them it's a $240 a year premium to not have to manage their BS

Well, it's basically differential pricing: customers that are price conscious will keep up with them and keep their monthly rates as low as possible, customers who can't be bothered with that BS will simply pay the premium. Is it annoying? You bet. But if you regulate that away, they'll just jack up prices across the board.

In some respects, this is a "golden age" of entertainment [...] I'm most bummed out that I don't have the free time to enjoy half of what's out there, but people keep trying to get me to pay for all of it just to get the little pieces I do want.

Well, that's precisely why people can offer you "unlimited free bandwidth" for something: because they have done the studies and figured out that people won't use it that much. If you demand the kind of simplistic pricing you want, prices won't go down for you, they will stay the same or go up.

on top of rates that are already some of the highest in the world for marginal broadband

I've subscribed to broadband in several countries. In comparison, US broadband is pretty good. It's nominally a bit more expensive than in some other countries, but that's because it's subsidized there; you pay for it through taxes. Conditions, choice of plans, and service in the US are generally better than elsewhere in my experience.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

on top of rates that are already some of the highest in the world for marginal broadband

I've subscribed to broadband in several countries. In comparison, US broadband is pretty good. It's nominally a bit more expensive than in some other countries, but that's because it's subsidized there; you pay for it through taxes. Conditions, choice of plans, and service in the US are generally better than elsewhere in my experience.

Roads and highways are pretty good in the U.S. - it's part of what made our economy strong in the last 70 years.

I don't believe that all regulation leads to petulant price gouging, when there are competitors in the market. I do believe that living in fear (amongst the electorate) of being "smacked back" by every person or company in power whenever they catch an unpleasant break from the regulators (legislators, and by proxy: voters) is what keeps the Republican party in power - it's been my most disappointing disillusionment growing up in the "land of the free, home of the brave."

"Flat tax" has a grass-roots kind of appeal, and I support a lot of its tenents - put the accountants out of work, please, and simplify tax law to a point where it's easily understood and complied with. I don't particularly believe in higher, or lower taxes - simplify while remaining revenue neutral. But, on the flip side, taking 22.4% out of everyone, regardless of their level of wealth, is another kind of insanity, hard to say if it's worse than the Kafkaesque pile of laws, rules, regulations, forms, guidance documents, case law and consultant opinions that amount to our taxation system today, but a perfectly flat tax certainly lacks any semblance of "fair."

Wouldn't it be nice if we, as consumers, could somehow influence the market to provide a more "flat tax" tariff on us for the services they provide? Seems to be going in the opposite direction rather quickly, though.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I don't believe that all regulation leads to petulant price gouging

Did I say anything like that? Regulations actually usually lead to opportunity costs and fairly uniform increases in prices, both of which are imperceptible and insidious effects. That is, with regulations, unlike "price gouging", you usually don't even notice the high price you are paying.

Roads and highways are pretty good in the U.S. it's part of what made our economy strong in the last 70 years.

We are talking about ISPs not roads. But if you do want to use roads as an analogy, they are massively misallocated in the US, with highways in places like the Bay Area perpetually congested, and other highways woefully underutilized. The way highways and roads are funded leads to people settling in faraway places and shifting the burden of paying for their roads to other taxpayers. The fact that roads and highways used to be of fairly nice quality doesn't mean the money was well spent. And we can't even pay for maintaining this poorly conceived highway system anymore because there is no solid business model behind it.

Wouldn't it be nice if we, as consumers, could somehow influence the market to provide a more "flat tax" tariff on us for the services they provide?

Just because the US market doesn't cater to your personal preferences for content doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. And, no, I don't think it "would be nice", I like the market the way it is, because I've seen the alternatives, and they are worse.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

Just because the US market doesn't cater to your personal preferences for content doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. And, no, I don't think it "would be nice", I like the market the way it is, because I've seen the alternatives, and they are worse.

Just because the alternatives you have seen are worse doesn't mean there aren't better alternatives to what we have.

Times change, technology changes.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Just because the alternatives you have seen are worse doesn't mean there aren't better alternatives to what we have.

There are doubtlessly numerous better alternatives. But I don't presume to know them. And unless you are omniscient and can speak on behalf of 330 million Americans, neither do you. You certainly do not speak for me because I don't want what you want.

So, how about we determine the better alternatives through voting? And how about we determine how many votes people get based on the stake and interest they actually have in the outcome? Oh, right: we call that process of voting a "free market" and the votes "dollars".

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

And how about we determine how many votes people get based on the stake and interest they actually have in the outcome? Oh, right: we call that process of voting a "free market" and the votes "dollars".

And we're back to the "free market solves all," except that without regulation, the free market gives you Rockerfellers, Carnegies, and AT&T, and they served everyone so well.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[JoeMerchant]

Roads and highways are pretty good in the U.S. it's part of what made our economy strong in the last 70 years.

We are talking about ISPs not roads. But if you do want to use roads as an analogy, they are massively misallocated in the US, with highways in places like the Bay Area perpetually congested, and other highways woefully underutilized. The way highways and roads are funded leads to people settling in faraway places and shifting the burden of paying for their roads to other taxpayers. The fact that roads and highways used to be of fairly nice quality doesn't mean the money was well spent. And we can't even pay for maintaining this poorly conceived highway system anymore because there is no solid business model behind it.

That "inefficient" road system, concieved of out of pinko Communism, is a big part of what sets the US apart from China and India - we have a reasonably even level of development - sure there are local variations, but we all have decent transport connectivity, clean water and sanitary sewers, telephone and now internet service. It's an inefficient system, some areas are overutilized while others are hardly used at all, but all areas have some reasonable level of service that gives them the opportunity to develop - not a mandate to, but the possibility.

If you let Arkansas "develop normally" without federally funded roads, utilities, etc., mandated by law and delivered at a net loss, it would be one awesome wildlife park today. Most of the desert southwest would still be uninhabitable and inaccessible by today's standards, and, from an environmental standpoint, that might have been preferable - but if you're just talking economics, building some under-utilized roads pulls geographic areas up into the modern standards of living and makes them "part of" the country.

As to: we can't afford the roads we have, I don't know where you live, but in Florida there seems to be no shortage of road construction projects, widening, resurfacing, and generally updating all over the place. If we really couldn't afford them, I guess all those construction workers would be busy doing something more important instead.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

That "inefficient" road system, concieved of out of pinko Communism,

Actually, it was conceived out of brownish progressivism: the major US infrastructure and make-work projects of the 1930's were inspired by Europe, in particular Prussia and Nazi Germany. Furthermore, the highway system, like other such infrastructure systems, were motivated by military and defense use.

If you let Arkansas "develop normally" without federally funded roads, utilities, etc., mandated by law and delivered at a net loss, it would be one awesome wildlife park today.

There is no evidence to support that assertion. In fact, it is contradicted by historical precedent.

As to: we can't afford the roads we have, I don't know where you live,

It has nothing to do with where I live. Federal infrastructure spending in the US is increasingly crowded out by non-discretionary spending, and money keeps getting transferred from the general fund to keep the highway trust fund solvent.

Re:Free vs Fast Lane

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And we're back to the "free market solves all," except that without regulation, the free market gives you Rockerfellers, Carnegies, and AT&T, and they served everyone so well.

Look, I might understand why you aren't familiar enough with history to understand that that statement is bullshit as far as Rockefeller and Carnegie is concerned, but even if you're totally unfamiliar with US economic history, at least you should know that AT&T was a government created and government regulated monopoly. In fact, the Internet and low-cost phone service only took off once the government reduced its meddling in that market.

Seems ok to me

[Anonymous Coward]

In all honestly this service seems completely reasonable, delivering data through this service will cost tmobile less (since it will be originating inside their network and they have complete control over the colocation and whatnot) so why not let them offer their service without billing you. In my opinion it is no different than the video-over-ip that is offered by time warner or verizon, except instead of calling it a separate service they are just not billing you for it.

While they are at it they should go and bring back usenet and let you use their usenet mirrors for free too

Re:Seems ok to me

[Cantankerous Cur]

Yeah, but 'free' video-over-ip is a clear conflict of interest.

For example, Comcast plans to start offering it's own video service and that won't count towards your 300GB cap. Surely you can see that this places Netflix and other streaming services at an unquestionable disadvantage.

Re:Seems ok to me

[Wycliffe]

In all honestly this service seems completely reasonable, delivering data through this service will cost tmobile less (since it will be originating inside their network and they have complete control over the colocation and whatnot) so why not let them offer their service without billing you.

If it was "local traffic" vs "remote traffic" then not charging for the internet connectivity for that data would be reasonable. But that's not really what's happening. The cost to get from the internet to tmobile is negligible. That is not the reason that data fees for cellular is so much more expensive than broadband. The expensive part is getting it from tmobile to the end user. The reason cell phone data is a lot more expensive than broadband data is that that last mile is expensive. Whether I'm using my last mile data for vpn traffic, torrents, voip, videos, or music, the price should be the same for everybody and every service. Now, if you want to have QOS traffic where you get cheaper data for accepting higher latency, off peak times of day, etc... then I'm all for that. Stuff like torrents can be offloaded to high latency and/or offpeak times of day. Most video and music traffic is not like that but is requires premium high quality real time data channels in order to stream properly. There is no good reason that these should be charged less than other data traffic and by doing so you open a huge chasm in net neutrality.

Re:Seems ok to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the disadvantage would, some day, make the 'loosers' unite and get Free Internet to the world...
If some companies are providing free band width for some ISPs, instead of money.
That should always end becoming an improvement for us all.

Re:Seems ok to me

[Anonymous Coward]

1 bluray movie is around 25 GB, so 300 GB = around 12 movies a month at that quality, that really isn't that much

brought to you

[superwiz]

By the one of the few newspapers trying to charge for printed content on the Internet: free is bad for you. No self-serving there. I am appalled (appalled!) that there is gambling going on in here.

Re:brought to you

[tomhath]

Last time I checked, Netflix and Amazon charged for their services.

I'm fine with this...

[maorb]

The problem I had with charging services like Netflix and Hulu for special treatment is that it incentivizes ISPs (especially cellular ISPs) to provide a worse service to their end-users than is needed to fully enjoy streamed video content so they can effectively turn around and charge high bandwidth services a toll to access users on their cellular network.

This system from T-Mobile has a different incentive structure behind it though based on what I heard. Netflix and Hulu are NOT paying T-Mobile, they are just cooperating to make sure their data is not counted against T-Mobile's customer's data usage caps, which increases the value of all three companies services. T-Mobile has an incentive to offer this deal to any web-service that is well known and desirable enough to their end-users that offering access without a data cap improves the apparent value of T-Mobiles service.

Re:I'm fine with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypothetical scenario: Comcast does the same thing, making their xfinity streaming service not count against bandwidth usage, then progressively lowering the bandwidth cap / raising the price of plans with higher cap until netflix can no longer compete (for comcast customers).

That gaps in the law that allow T-Mobile to partner with netflix/hulu allow for the Comcast scenario too. If all bytes are not equal, someone will find a way to abuse it to create/protect a monopoly.

In the case of the T-Mobile thing, it makes even less sense, because the connection between the phone and tower almost certainly the bottleneck in their network.

Re:I'm fine with this...

[TheLongshot]

This system from T-Mobile has a different incentive structure behind it though based on what I heard. Netflix and Hulu are NOT paying T-Mobile, they are just cooperating to make sure their data is not counted against T-Mobile's customer's data usage caps, which increases the value of all three companies services. T-Mobile has an incentive to offer this deal to any web-service that is well known and desirable enough to their end-users that offering access without a data cap improves the apparent value of T-Mobiles service.

And therein lies the rub. T-Mobile decides which services qualify exemption from data caps, which violates the principles of net neutrality. For example, if I have a server set up somewhere to stream video for my own personal use, would that be exempt from data caps? Unlikely, because who the hell am I? Yes, I can also see a future where an up-and-coming service might not qualify. All traffic should be treated equally by the ISP. If T-Mobile thinks it can handle the additional traffic, they should raise data caps. BTW, I am a T-Mobile customer.

Re:I'm fine with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

In your example Comcast owns the Xfinity stream providing the data and has a market reason to squeeze out competing video services. T-Mobile doesn't own Netflix or Hulu or etc.

So it'd be like if Comcast offered unmetered access to YouTube, Netflix, etc (which is exactly what TMo is doing). Supposedly the video services just need to set up a way to notify TMo that an excepted service's stream is incoming and may be limited to 480p.

Re:I'm fine with this...

[Voyager529]

Comcast sells video service. T-Mobile does not. Comcast gets money if you subscribe to Xfinity. T-Mobile does not get money if you subscribe to Netflix. Thus, Comcast has a conflict of interest. T-Mobile does not.

Moreover, at least based on what it said right now, T-Mobile has solely technical requirements to meet in order to be part of BingeOn - whether you're Netflix or Comcast or Verizon Video* or Pornhub, if you meet their technological criteria, you're in**. Thus, in its present state, this isn't truly subject to the hypothetical scenario you're painting.

*No, Verizon Video doesn't exist in this respect. What I'm getting at is that T-Mobile's current rule set allow for a direct competitor to enter into this model, which is why it's not a conflict of interest like the Comcast example.

**One could argue that the "technological criteria" requirement could be stretched to "interstate commerce clause" levels, e.g. "videos must be in 720p .mp4 video, and not originate from servers with 'comcast.net', 'verizon.net', or 'att.net' in their DNS resolution traffic", but thus far, there's no evidence that T-Mobile intends to do this.

Re:I'm fine with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

> if I have a server set up somewhere to stream video for my own personal use, would that be exempt from data caps?

If your server streams video in accordance with T-Mobile's published specification, your server's video traffic will not count against T-Mobile subscribers' data buckets.

Re:I'm fine with this...

[maorb]

I suspect that your scenario would work itself out like this:

1. Comcast "zero-rates" only xfinity streaming and progressively decreases bandwidth, data caps or raises prices
2. At least one of Comcast's competitors decides not to do this. They may or may not also zero-rate Netflix
3. Customer notices that Netflix is using too much data, buffering too often, or plays in a low resolution. One of three things happens:
          a. Customer asks Comcast representative what's happening, customer gets directed to use Comcasts own services which are zero-rated. Some customers do so.
          b. Customer asks friends/family/internet what's happening and gets advice to switch ISP to TWC/ATT/Cox/"small local ISP" that still offers decent data cap or zero-rates Netflix. Customer does so.
          c. Customer does everything in option B, but lives in an area with no competition. They complain about Comcast and contribute to getting Comcast rated as the "worst company in America"... again. They may or may not purchase streaming from Comcast.

The end result is that Comcast losses some subscribers for their cable service, but gains some for their streaming service option. Given the relevant prices, I'd guess they lose out on more money than they gain. Simultaneously Comcast's competitors end up with an offering that is better than Comcast's by simply NOT CHANGING ANYTHING. This is the problem with degrading services as a business strategy; it only works if all available service providers have an incentive to degrade their services at the same time, like they did when everyone started phasing out "Unlimited" plans. But the only way for all ISPs to have an incentive to support a single video streaming service is if they all jointly own the same service. In this case, only Comcast benefits from zero-rating Xfinity related video streams, so TWC (or ATT/Cox/whatever) responds by zero-rating both TWC TV and Netflix at the same time to attract more customers.

This would work even more poorly for a cellular network operator like T-Mobile because there are even fewer areas where customers truly have not choice when selecting a service provider.

Weasly semantics

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just like the method some businesses used to subvert the provisions credit/debit card companies had in place forbidding the charging of fees for using the cards.

"Can't charge a fee? Fine-- nothing to stop us from offering a discount for cash."

Net effect is (was?) the same. Consumer gets screwed...

wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't these likely the same telcoms that regularly sue upstart telcoms out of existence on the grounds that (insert upstart telcom) had some unfair advantage and they couldn't compete with the upstarts even tho they had demonstrated time and time again they had no interest in servicing said area until someone else got tired of waiting and started their own service?

Sooo how is it not an unfair advantage if they simply don't meter their own services? How are other services supposed to compete when they get metered and the services held by or hold the telcoms do not get metered?

Re:wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't these likely the same telcoms that regularly sue upstart telcoms out of existence on the grounds that (insert upstart telcom) had some unfair advantage and they couldn't compete with the upstarts even tho they had demonstrated time and time again they had no interest in servicing said area until someone else got tired of waiting and started their own service?

No?

Dear ISPs

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remove the low usage caps for all web sites! Stop being dicks!

Please don't give me free stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

As A T-Mobile customer who would potentially benefit from this service: It should be illegal and I do not want it. Its perfectly clear what this kind of perverse bias is going to do, and I don't want my ISP charging me more to watch video if its through my VPN, or from some source they want to censor, or from my home server. They can jack up the data prices and offer free services like this as an easy way to deploy a walled garden for high bandwidth content. Its absolutely unacceptable for my ISP to have both legal immunity for what they enable me to do over the connection, and control over it. They either need to give up their legal protections from being a common carrier, or give up their control.

NYT is clueless

[andymadigan]

Once again a dead-tree newspaper demonstrates total lack of technical awareness.

Though they do mention how Binge On actually works (implement the technical requirements, fill out a form, and it works) they try to imply that T-Mobile will choose to exclude services based on their own non-technical criteria.

T-Mobile so far has shown they're not going to exclude competitor's services, and said that they won't exclude services based on content. Of course, NYT's editorial staff probably can't understand the technical aspects of the service, and what they know of the business doesn't fit their narrative. While the NYT might think so, "Binge On" does not appear to be designed to steer user's content choices.

This reminds me of the Washington Post claiming that technical companies could come up with a "golden key" for law enforcement to break encryption and somehow magically prevent criminals from using it (and then accusing tech companies of lying about it). It's just technical illiteracy mixed with contempt for the industry they see as "destroying journalism".

Re:NYT is clueless

[Rhywden]

Actually, the German CEO did state recently that he considered it a help for startups if they were to give the Telekom (the German mothership) money in order to gain access to a fast lane. He also stated that he'd consider a "few percents of the total revenue" fair.

Burning the candle at both ends.

[Dega704]

On one hand telecoms are saying "We have to impose data caps because of the strain on our networks!" and then they turn around and make the most popular data heavy applications not count against your cap. Why are they not being called out more frequently and audibly about this blatant self-contradiction?

Re:Burning the candle at both ends.

[Anonymous Coward]

On one hand telecoms are saying "We have to impose data caps because of the strain on our networks!" and then they turn around and make the most popular data heavy applications not count against your cap. Why are they not being called out more frequently and audibly about this blatant self-contradiction?

Because most people can't see more than 6 inches in front of their face. "They're giving us something free!"

Re:Burning the candle at both ends.

[CrankyFool]

At least in the case of Netflix, it's probably because Netflix has for a while now had a public offer to large ISPs where it will place caches of its servers in the ISP, resulting in a huge amount of Netflix streaming activity happening within the ISP's network rather than required to go over peering links.

Re:Burning the candle at both ends.

[Wycliffe]

At least in the case of Netflix, it's probably because Netflix has for a while now had a public offer to large ISPs where it will place caches of its servers in the ISP, resulting in a huge amount of Netflix streaming activity happening within the ISP's network rather than required to go over peering links.

That would be a valid point if the bottleneck was the carrier's connection to the internet. The reason that cell companies charge considerably more than broadband companies is because the bottleneck is between the carrier and the cell phone. Having caching servers inside the carrier's data center does nothing to help the actual bottleneck.

Re:Burning the candle at both ends.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you're saying I get a free tote bag if I let you perform experimental surgeries on me? Where do I sign?!!?!?

Re:Burning the candle at both ends.

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile doesn't have data caps. T-Mobile doesn't whine about strained networks.

Re:Burning the candle at both ends.

[Anonymous Coward]

BingeOn defines a video standard which will reduce the strain on T-Mobile's network by two-thirds. There is no contradiction.

Re:Burning the candle at both ends.

[Anonymous Coward]

Muricans and their silly data caps. Lul.

yep, this is a problem

[Gravis Zero]

it's very simple to check if something is a problem if you simply take it to it's extreme.

in this case, you can pay $50 for access to a data plan but your data cap is 1MB. however, if you visit sites X, Y and Z, you can stream several gigs of data without it counting against your data cap. exceeding your data cap incurs a $10 per MB fee. so if you aren't site X, Y or Z then people wont want to use your site... but if you pay the ISP money, they will make it free for people to go to your site too.

the result is nobody will go to your site unless you pay ISPs money. this is a problem.

Re:yep, this is a problem

[Wycliffe]

it's very simple to check if something is a problem if you simply take it to it's extreme.

in this case, you can pay $50 for access to a data plan but your data cap is 1MB. however, if you visit sites X, Y and Z, you can stream several gigs of data without it counting against your data cap. exceeding your data cap incurs a $10 per MB fee. so if you aren't site X, Y or Z then people wont want to use your site... but if you pay the ISP money, they will make it free for people to go to your site too.

the result is nobody will go to your site unless you pay ISPs money. this is a problem.

Although I agree with this, if the cell carrier was a common carrier with a fixed rate, then I would be ok with netflix footing the bill for the consumer. Just like we have 800 numbers where the receiving party foots the bill, if set up correctly, it could be reasonable to zero rate services.

Car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

... give telecommunications companies the ability to influence what services people use ...

This is like saying free bus tickets means more people will use the bus: It will, up to a point. This is trickle-down economics all-over again. One is assuming that the goods are perfectly consumable. In the case of the mega-rich, a pay-rise (tax break) didn't make them fire the hired help and eat-out every night. The same stickiness applies to other consumable goods. We all know how limited bus services are: Most bus stops are 'closed' at 2 in the morning; one can't get a 15 minute arrival resolution to the outer suburbs, cargo is limited to wearable items only (plus prams). Then there's social engineering, as the bus reaches carrying capacity, people will stop redeeming their free tickets. There will be some favouritism but we don't worry when there's a price attached: Eg Apple phones, Microsoft operating systems or Fox news. So why would a free service so troublesome?

Putting the cart before the horse

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a telecom provider allowing certain services will probably drive some users to prefer those services over others. The trick is, T-Mobile (or any other telecom) isn't likely to be offering free access to services that aren't already popular. Netflix and HBO were already services their user base wanted to use. It's extremely unlikely that a telcom will manage to push many people into using a no name or offbrand service with the promise of free data when there's already a popular alternative, event if that alternative costs money. T-Mobile isn't offering Netflix access because Netflix is some fledgeling company that T-Mobile owns and is trying to drum up business for.

But even if it was, even if T-Mobile was pushing some super new video service and people were switching to that service over Netflix or HBO or anything else, I fail to see the problem. More choices is good.

Re:Putting the cart before the horse

[Wycliffe]

T-Mobile isn't offering Netflix access because Netflix is some fledgeling company that T-Mobile owns and is trying to drum up business for.

But even if it was, even if T-Mobile was pushing some super new video service and people were switching to that service over Netflix or HBO or anything else, I fail to see the problem. More choices is good.

Yes, more choices is good but by offering free access to only the most popular service they are limiting choices.

inappropriately? who decides appropriateness?

[sittingnut]

seems instead of letting consumers and companies decide what to use and what to sell at what price, some people(who?) want pricing decisions and consequent buying decisions to follow their taste.

Flatrates should be forbidden

[drolli]

Make a metered access, so that the price is comparable. Forbid exceptions.

I don't want a provider who makes deals where "big service a is nice to me and i am nice to big service a" is the deal, i am paying for it. And yes, i will pay for it, since big service a will have no competition, and provider will "offer" big service a colocations at places suitable for the provider. Good for the provider because the traffic across network boundaries is reduced, and they can reduce their bandwidth (which in turn means that small services will be slower).

Re:Flatrates should be forbidden

[Anonymous Coward]

> deals where "big service a is nice to me and i am nice to big service a" ... are expressly prohibited by the FCC policy, which expressly forbids compensation, whether monetary or otherwise.

T-Mobile has published a standard for streaming video and has included a competitor's streaming video service amongst the initial list of streaming services which is compliant with that standard.

not charge companies to be part of its free servic

[Anonymous Coward]

'does not charge companies to be part of its free service'
so I can free-of-charge get my video-hosting website enlisted for not be counted into users' data plan?
great. where do I sign?

Depends how it is done

[scamper_22]

There are technical reasons why things be done for cheaper.
For example if Netflix partners with ISPs to colocate content within the ISP, then it is actually cheaper for the ISP to deliver Netflix. Netflix data isn't traveling outside their network anymore.

As long as:
1. Netflix works reasonably with all ISPs to do the same thing.
2. The ISPs work reasonably with all video streaming servics (if they offer such a thing).

Not all bad

[viperidaenz]

This was quite common in New Zealand a few (5, maybe 10) years ago. We had pretty small data caps and not really and unlimited plans.
I think the cost of international bandwidth has come down a lot since then, so we have unlimited data plans for a reasonable price now and not really much in the way of uncapped services.

Re:not charge companies to be part of its free ser

[viperidaenz]

You should probably get the ISP that provides your website bandwidth to sign up, not yourself.

Actually, that's ordinary bundling

[guacamole]

Some companies are bundling products and services!

Shocking!

News at 11.

not new

[luther349]

some isps with data caps would post things like Linux distros and other big data hogs on there servers and if you downloaded from there would not count on your data cap.

The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

Google can try explaining it vs. proof my ware's CLEAN (from VirusTotal which GOOGLE owns, you stupid freak):

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who also has the source & verified it safe too) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Its installer's clean per VirScan http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

* :)

In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?

You failed badly on all accounts.

APK

P.S.=> Especially funny is that you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) which tips your hand & PROVED YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity, running away from this most of all -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

... apk

The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

F*** the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another example of the FCC inventing new problems so that it can extend its power and justify its existence.

FCC=Wrong Agency - FTC makes those rules

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC is mandated to control Communications only. For the Binge On and competition, you're looking at an FTC Ruling in regards to that since they're mandate involves Trade, not communications unless it's related to advertising.