Slashdot Mirror


Net Neutrality is Essentially Unassailable, Argues Billionaire Barry Diller (broadcastingcable.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Yahoo Finance: The billionaire media mogul behind such popular sites as Expedia, Match.com and HomeAdvisor has a one-word forecast for traditional media conglomerates concerned about being replaced by tech giants: serfdom. "They, like everyone else, are kind of going to be serfs on the land of the large tech companies," IAC chairman Barry Diller said... That's because Google and Facebook not only have such massive user bases but also dominate online advertising. "Google and Facebook are consolidating," Diller said. "They are the only mass advertising mediums we have..." He expects Facebook, Google and maybe Amazon to face government regulation, simply because of their immense size. "At a certain point in size, you must," he said. "It's inevitable."

He did, however, outline one positive for Big Tech getting so gargantuan. Big Telecom no longer has the economic leverage to roll back today's net-neutrality norms, in which internet providers don't try to charge sites extra for access to their subscribers. "I think it's hard to overturn practically," he said. "It is the accepted system."

Even if the U.S. government takes moves to fight net neutrality, Diller told CNBC that "I think it is over... It is [the] practice of the world... You're still going to be able to push a button and publish to the world, without anybody in between asking you for tribute. I think that is now just the way things are done. I don't think it can be violated no matter what laws are back."

82 comments

  1. What does Barry Diller know? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    WTF does Barry Diller know about how net neutrality works? What qualifies him to spout about the subject apart from being one of the USA's anointed ones, i.e. a billionaire and therefore the press prints whatever shit falls out of his mouth?

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    1. Re:What does Barry Diller know? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

      WTF does Barry Diller know about how net neutrality works?

      Clearly not as much as quasi-anonymous Slashdot commentator VeryFluffyBunny.

    2. Re:What does Barry Diller know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wgevt

    3. Re:What does Barry Diller know? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Clearly nothing. He doesn't think it can be violated while actively ignoring all the examples where it has been violated already. E.g throttling and data caps on video services not owned by the ISP.

    4. Re:What does Barry Diller know? by pots · · Score: 2

      He's allowed to have an opinion, even if it's dumb. People say the same thing whenever a celebrity disagrees with whatever bullshit they think is important: "Celebrities are just there to look pretty. They should speak only when spoken to."

      The problem isn't that this guy says something or thinks something, the problem is that we are paying attention to him. He is not the problem, we are.

    5. Re:What does Barry Diller know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF does Barry Diller know about how net neutrality works? What qualifies him to spout about the subject apart from being one of the USA's anointed ones, i.e. a billionaire and therefore the press prints whatever shit falls out of his mouth?

      Perhaps we should set up a filter on Slashdot to censor his name, and remove content from being shared at the press of a button without asking. Perhaps he might then grasp the fact that destroying net neutrality has far more to do with censorship.

      Oh, and when you address any industry with the term "Big" in front of it, yes, they do in fact have leverage. They also likely qualify for Too-Big-To-Fail status too.

    6. Re:What does Barry Diller know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Net neutrality is trivial to defeat, and it was only the FCC, with rules and guidelines from when the NSFNet was sold to AT&T, which held things at bay.

      Back in the early 1990s, there was a race for a bit between the Internet (dialup modems) and closed cable set-top boxes. Thankfully, the Internet won, otherwise we would have been paying for "stamps" for E-mail, or "requesting to have posted" onto bulletin boards anything (which had to be approved by a censor.)

      This can easily happen again. Consoles are pretty much hackproof, with anything out of the norm causing the machine to be banned from communication. All it will take is AT&T, Comcast, and other cable providers to ban anything on their network that doesn't pass some form of NAC healthcheck, but instead of checking for antivirus, it would check for a hardware DRM stack, and something like IME or some head-end accessible override (think your cable modem is yours? Think again. It is trivial to flash a custom firmware from the headend side.)

      From there, it is simple... force a central login, either via AppleIDs, Microsoft IDs, and if someone doesn't have a good enough Whuffie score [1], they are denied access to the net.

      [1]: If you think this is just stuff from "Nosedive"... think again. China is doing this right now.

    7. Re:What does Barry Diller know? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      We already have a stark illustration of what ISPs look like without net neutrality, e.g. Portugal: https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-...

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    8. Re:What does Barry Diller know? by twebb72 · · Score: 1

      Truly an example of fake news.

      To paraphrase Barry Diller "LOOK OVER HERE! OVER HERE!" (while I remove protections and regulations while you are distracted by the vomit coming out of my mouth)

  2. This will not last forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems very naive to believe that tech companies will always back net neutrality. Once Google reaches critical market share providing home Internet service, either by deploying their own solution or buying up existing companies, their position on net neutrality will reverse.

    Looking at it from another perspective, net neutrality favors startups. If Google and Facebook can work out deals with cable companies that will impede any startup that challenges their market dominance their concern for net neutrality will evaporate.

    1. Re:This will not last forever by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      It seems very naive to believe that tech companies will always back net neutrality. Once Google reaches critical market share providing home Internet service, either by deploying their own solution or buying up existing companies, their position on net neutrality will reverse.

      Indeed. Facebook already tried to do this with their "Free Basics" service in India, that would have prioritized their own services. Tech companies support NN when, and only when, it is in their interest to do so. Expecting them to be our saviors and protectors from the evil Telecoms is naive.

    2. Re:This will not last forever by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google and Facebook don't even need a deal.

      Who is going to sign up for an Internet plan in which Google and Facebook don't work well?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:This will not last forever by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      And yet I'm not sure I disagree with this. I'm inclined to believe an non-neutral net is preferable to no net at all. However non-neutral has no place in a well connected world.

    4. Re:This will not last forever by swb · · Score: 1

      The big players like Google, Apple, and Facebook already evade the problem of startups by buying them out. I read someplace they've perverted the so-called startup culture by making getting bought out the number one goal.

      And when they don't bother, they just take a page from Microsoft's book and add the startup's features to their own product.

    5. Re:This will not last forever by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Who is going to sign up for an Internet plan in which Google and Facebook don't work well?

      The day Apple makes a search engine and a social network.

    6. Re:This will not last forever by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      You are not wrong here, where I am you can get perfect Netflix streaming and Facebook browsing but everything else is slow as shit. NN died here long ago, by popular demand no less. Oh yeah, Youtube usually works fine as well, even when a local news site is timing out. Not many people here would be interested in an ISP which did not give those "essential" services priority. So in my mind NN died a long time ago anyways, they are just trying to make it legal to make more money.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    7. Re:This will not last forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Block googleapis.com and tell me how well the rest of the net works.

    8. Re:This will not last forever by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Google and Facebook don't even need a deal.

      Who is going to sign up for an Internet plan in which Google and Facebook don't work well?

      Oh, this one's $10 less and Facebook doesn't work well [all else being equal]? Sign me up!

    9. Re:This will not last forever by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      What an idea: an internet without two of the most privacy invasive corporations there is, which are already omnipresent and pervasive, and where extraordinary measures must be taken to not provide them data on your browsing behavior.

      That the mere suggestion of not being subject to Google and Facebook data harvesting is to invite flamebait and troll moderation, is also interesting. I didn't realize such an idea was so verboten. Duly noted.

  3. Facebook is losing popularity, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Facebook has pretty much become the old people's web. Yeah, some younger people use it, but nobody gets excited over it or encourages their friends. It's mostly just used to keep track of older friends or classmates. It's the Slashdot of social networks.

    Nobody gets excited about google either. What google will learn, as Facebook is now. Easy web interfaces for consumers are easily switched. Yeah, Android and iOS are popular now, but so was Windows once. When the next UI paradigm arrives everyone will just switch to who became popular first on that. It's likely going to be augmented reality glasses.

  4. Look for motive by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Informative

    What companies is Barry Diller involved in that will benefit from the loss of "Net Neutrality"?

    It looks like USA Network and Fox Network, both of which he helped found. AC/InterActiveCorp, and Expedia. What possible motive would someone whose billions of dollars are tied to such media giants gain from getting people to ignore the issues of Net Neutrality? What control by business lobbyists might be gained if an informed citizenry pays no attention to it?

    I believe this also answers the question of "what does Barry Diller know". He knows that the loss of Net Neutrality can benefit his highly capitalized companies in which he has enormous personal investments: favoring particular, paying media companies over other Internet traffic is highly beneficial to his large, existing companies.

    1. Re:Look for motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What companies is Barry Diller involved in that will benefit from the loss of "Net Neutrality"?

      It looks like USA Network and Fox Network, both of which he helped found. AC/InterActiveCorp, and Expedia. What possible motive would someone whose billions of dollars are tied to such media giants gain from getting people to ignore the issues of Net Neutrality? What control by business lobbyists might be gained if an informed citizenry pays no attention to it?

      I believe this also answers the question of "what does Barry Diller know". He knows that the loss of Net Neutrality can benefit his highly capitalized companies in which he has enormous personal investments: favoring particular, paying media companies over other Internet traffic is highly beneficial to his large, existing companies.

      So like a reverse psychology, lulling us into a false sense of complacency ("Oh we don't need to fight this, it could never happen!"), while future Barry chuckles on his way to the bank?

  5. Support the sites you like by AHuxley · · Score: 0

    The more big brand social media limits, controls, blocks, removes content, stops ads, the more people will rediscover the fun of the internet they can support.
    The more SJW guided tech giants push for censorship, ad control, limit ad payments, the more site will go direct to their users for funds. No more big brand SJW gate keepers only wanting to allow ads on site that SJW approve of.

    Users of a site, forum, will just get a wallet code per site and spend some time using their cpu, gpu to create support.
    New browsers and powerful user installed extensions will just block all online advertising.
    No big brand ads needed. No big brand gate keepers. The net will go back to the freedoms of the 1990's with sites and their supportive users.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Support the sites you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious that you pin SJWs to all those negative things. Fuck off Nazi

    2. Re:Support the sites you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like something a Russian would say

    3. Re:Support the sites you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Da, comrade. Clear as vodka.

    4. Re:Support the sites you like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anytime someone puts stupid buzzwords/acronyms like SJW into any sentence, I immediately assume they are liars. If you can't make a cogent argument without inserting buzzwords, your argument is not worth considering.

  6. cartoon physics by epine · · Score: 3, Funny

    The price of housing never went down ... at least, not until people starting to go around endlessly repeating the maxim that the price of housing never goes down.

    This issue is just a titch too important to relegate to cartoon physics with a broad wave of a feckless "what, me worry?" ostrich paintbrush.

  7. Re:I hate all of you moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I hope all moderators are die off. "

    Crammar detected.

    Come on Chris, you lost your account and your karma through your own behavior. Seek help.

  8. pseudonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pseudonymous

  9. China Has Already Shown the Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For decades now China has poured money into hardware and software to control what people see and how they see it with their so-called "Great Firewall of China". This has created an entire cottage industry in specialized network appliances and software offering all sorts of content filtering, logging, monitoring and re-rerouting of traffic etc. It took time and billions of dollars, but China and other oppressive governments have managed to tame the Internet. Now that same software and hardware is available to private companies chasing more banal objectives, like charging you more for the right to watch Netflix vs their in-house streaming offerings. I don't agree with Mr Diller that Net Neutrality is unassailable. It's being assailed right now. The opening shots in this war were arguably fired by Comcast in 2007 with the spoofed TCP reset packet controversy. The tools now are both more targeted and more effective. The threat is real and people ignore it at their peril. The Internet as we knew it is slipping into history and has been for some time now. If nothing is done, the end result will be something similar to cable television with access to Facebook, ISP branded video streaming and not much else.

    1. Re:China Has Already Shown the Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An open system of mesh networking is the only solution. Decentralization is the only workable reaction to increasingly centralized censorship.

    2. Re:China Has Already Shown the Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you mean Fidonet and Usenet? They're probably still around in some form. But they don't beat Chinese-style control. Since all telephone service these days runs essentially over the internet, it's controlled just like the major companies are. The old days of common-carrier POTS to run your modem on are gone. Perhaps you could try using your cell phone's hotspot capability to connect with Fidonet, but the backend transport is still over the internet in some way.

  10. The Poor shouldn't be able to Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Big media needs to lock this shit down. Once the poor are back to read-only, things you read about will be better.

    1. Re:The Poor shouldn't be able to Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most GenXers I know have retired with a couple rentals, nail salons, filabertos and laundromats. Maybe no longer pulling in 120k/year, but honestly you don't need that much when you have all the free time in the world. Travel in comfort, not luxury.

    2. Re: The Poor shouldn't be able to Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing all the people in the world are only like the 100 you know.

  11. Re: I hate all of you moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why though?

  12. Re:I hate all of you moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I hope all moderators are die off".

    Maybe if you learned to write proper English you wouldn't get moderated so much. Moron.

  13. Already happening by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The telecomms already are charging companies for access, and the big companies like Google and NetFlix are fine with it because the cost for them isn't prohibitively high. That still leaves the small companies facing having to pay for access to end users, and it'll be harder for them because the precedent's already there that having to pay for access to your customers is OK.

    1. Re:Already happening by grumpy_old_grandpa · · Score: 2

      "The telecomms already are charging companies for access, and the big companies like Google and NetFlix"

      For Google, the by far largest contributor to bandwidth use is Youtube. And they way I understand it, Google has deploy thousands of caching servers in the networks of most of the world's ISPs. That makes sense, since the ISP don't incur inbound network cost on those streams, and the end-user gets the content faster.

      There are stories about a few banana republic ISPs which have tried to charge Google for hosting these caching servers, missing the point entirely. As far as I understand, they are only a few and far between.

    2. Re:Already happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ISP (COX) just raised my monthly cell phone bill 5 bucks stating that it was because I wasn't bundling.

      DirecTV and ATT are one now, and they want me to switch from Verizon to ATT's cell service, and they're going to charge me more if I don't bundle.

      They won't say it that way, they won't be as brazen as Cox, but that will be the end result.

      NN isn't about what Barry thinks it is, it's about not charging me more if I use Netflix instead of my ISP's preferred streaming service.

      They're going to bait people with free services and in a few years the WWW will be just as shitty as cable TV.

    3. Re:Already happening by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      Network neutrality isn't actually about not charging you more in that case. It's about not trying to charge Netflix to avoid degraded service but more about not deliberately degrading Netflix's traffic just because Netflix won't pay to reach the ISP's customers (as opposed to throttling all high-data-volume streams coming across a network connection point from all sources equally and only when congestion across that point exceeds a certain threshold, which is what you'd expect when throttling was used for traffic management and not revenue enhancement).

  14. Convincing by lucm · · Score: 1

    The billionaire media mogul behind such popular sites as Expedia, Match.com and HomeAdvisor

    All of those are now mostly obsolete, their business models completely disrupted by new players. I'm not sure that guy is a reference when it comes to predicting the future.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Convincing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, the billionaire got his.

  15. Mediums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we please go back to using 'medium' as singular and 'media' as plural? This recent phenomena is razing my hackles.

    1. Re:Mediums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we please go back to using 'medium' as singular and 'media' as plural? This recent phenomena is razing my hackles.

      Recent? I'd check your maths on that.

  16. Says the guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That also worked for ABC, Parmount, and Fox. He will make a fortune if net neutrality goes away. Ignore the "just give it up" message.

  17. Re: I hate all of you moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the mods on this site do not moderate based on grammer. That would be horrible.

    Don't get me wrong, the guy is a moron. He's some asshole throwing a tantrum like a 4 years old.

  18. Narrative Stretcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The threat is real and people ignore it at their peril.

    I think the internet is much too big and complex to be brought down by this sort of policy change. There is more resilience than this 'peril' narrative gives the internet credit for.

  19. Not Big Tech vs Big Telecom by jeti · · Score: 2

    It won't be Big Tech vs Big Telecom. It will be Big vs small.

  20. pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are stories about a few banana republic ISPs which have tried to charge Google for hosting these caching servers, missing the point entirely. As far as I understand, they are only a few and far between.

    you might as well say "there are stories about people who come back from the dead" or "there are stories about places where time goes backward" and they all seem reasonable in your broken mind

  21. I never considered the Internet as "free" by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    IMHO the internet always was second to an improved Fidonet or something similar. Considering the internet "free" always seemed a little naive. It's 2 decades ago that commercial online services controlled access to the web, you had to be always online, it was hideously expensive and slow and E-Mail has always been a shitty non-private service, as has the usenet.

    These days Google and Facebook have taken over the position of AOL and Compuserve for a larger part of the population. Plus we all now that three-letter agencies are observing the internet in its entireity. Since Snowden this is no news.

    What I do find scary about china is not their control of the internet, but how it shows how control of the internet expands into society. That's the real deal, if you will. They've basically got Brave New World + 1984 going, big time. It's all out cyberpunk where we are headed for and the China you described is one part of the puzzle, that much is true.

    My 2 eurocents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  22. one word? by pahles · · Score: 1

    ...has a one-word forecast...

    He sure uses a lot of words in his one-word forecast.

    --
    Sig?
  23. He doesn't think. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    I don't think it can be violated no matter what laws are back.

    He should have just ended the sentence with "I don't think".

    I think it is pretty obvious that net neutrality can and is being violated by many parties already.

    1. Re:He doesn't think. by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the entire argument is like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. I am not a network guy, I am a programmer, but I have done a fair amount of network related programming and to find your own bugs you have to know how everything fits together and so I have read a fair amount of literature. In my experience there has NEVER been an uncapped internet. Priority has always been given to certain ports depending on requirements. That is not net neutrality. Fine, what they are arguing about now is whether certain servers / companies should be given higher priority than others, slight difference, but basically the same thing since the "web" is mostly on port 80, or 443. Personally I don't see the big fuss, it never existed anyway.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    2. Re:He doesn't think. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I think it is pretty obvious that net neutrality can and is being violated by many parties already.

      Where is your evidence for this?

    3. Re:He doesn't think. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I think it is pretty obvious that net neutrality can and is being violated by many parties already.

      Where is your evidence for this?

      Pick an ISP and let's talk about their practices. We can talk about those charging differently for anyone peering with Netflix. We can talk about download caps which don't apply to their own streaming video services. We can talk about free access to Facebook and only Facebook on mobile phones. And these are just the 3 that my own personal ISPs have been guilty of. I'm sure if I switched ISP again I can find another example to add to the list.

      You think the desire for net neutrality legislation just popped up out of thin air?

    4. Re:He doesn't think. by sheph · · Score: 1

      It gives the biggest companies an unfair advantage squeezing out the little guy. It will ultimately stifle competition which is never good for the public at large.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    5. Re:He doesn't think. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      We can talk about those charging differently for anyone peering with Netflix

      Yes, networks are charging Netflix fair market value for the HUGE amount of traffic they are dumping onto the Internet, and in the process raking in tons of cash from subscriptions. But in truth, these carriers are really just asking Netflix to BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE needed to dump their traffic on other networks, including dropping content caches inside end-user ISPs.

      And wah, zero rating. Giving someone something for free. That is REALLY harming the consumer. Oh please, make me pay more for the main social services that I want to use!

      Net neutrality is a conspiracy theory by people who don't realize that the Internet only came into existence because of the lack of government regulation and the free market.

      I was there, I saw the commercial Internet get built, I fought against the Communications Decency Act, I know how challenging it has to scale content distribution for high-quality video.

      We do not need government micromanagement of network architecture and business!

    6. Re:He doesn't think. by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      How about when comcast throttled bittorrent and admitted it. Or when AT&T blocked 4chan. I believe both incidents were covered extensively on slashdot.

  24. Quite a lot, I suggest. by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    Since Net Neutrality is a manifestation of free market economics and his background in business and broadcasting he probably does have an informed perspective. That doesn't make him right, but his perspective and credentials are on the table.

    1. Re:Quite a lot, I suggest. by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      ...his background in business and broadcasting...

      His background doesn't appear to cover how net neutrality works, i.e. the telecoms control the medium of communication and, if left unregulated, can impose whatever prioritisation and constraints on any specific packets of data from any source and to any destination they choose.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  25. Watch the bread and circuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    American public puppets. Watch the show. Enjoy the ride. We will not discuss the internet backbones, and what rules and regulations they run under. No, only the last mile, that's what is important. Debate that, look at the shiny. DNS, caching, edge networks...no no...net neutral net neutral

  26. Re: I hate all of you moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because Chris planned on retiring on his Amazon affiliate spam he shitposted here daily. He legitimately thought he was going to extrapolate his coffee money into a million dollar empire.
    He originally claimed to be a highly-valued member of Slashdot through the quality of his submissions. His last submission was tagged "spam" and I think it sent him over the edge.
    https://slashdot.org/submissio...
    Chris also has a tremendous ego out of proportion to anything he's achieved, yet paradoxically he also has a very thin skin.
    You can see this here: moderators were OK as long as he had positive karma, but as soon as Slashdot got tired of his nonsense, you get AC posts like the OP.
    You can also see his personality disorder at work when he writes a Python scrip to cumulate all his imaginary karma points over his posting history. What kind of person does this? An insecure person with a fragile self-esteem.

  27. Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hype about the end of net neutrlity is just that, hype. The liberal left wants us to think its the end of the world because companies are being given the freedom to compete but this is clearly just another aspect of their insane hate-on for the Trump administration. Net nutrality is fine so stop uselessly agitating for it. Your effort is wasted and is not necessary anyway. Guaranteed.

    1. Re:Exactly. by sheph · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I'm not even close to a liberal, and I think the end of net neutrality would be a very bad deal for the general consumer.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
  28. Re:I hate all of you moderators by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    All your moderators are died to us.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  29. price rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so instead of paying per byte we are paying more per byte.

    stealth price rise by dividing services, what was once included is now extra......then with multiple prices easier to raise in the future

  30. The Elephant in the Room is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple. Wasn't mentioned above, but Apple's revenue is double the other big ones. MS and Google go back and forth for 2nd place. See: https://www.statista.com/statistics/234529/comparison-of-apple-and-google-revenues/

    In terms of market cap, Apple in recent years has often been more than MS and Google combined.

    So in stories like this one, why is it Google and MS that get all the heat? Is Apple so wonderful?

    1. Re: The Elephant in the Room is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because Apple respects your privacy. They are a hardware company, not a data mining company like google and Microsoft.

  31. Easy for him to say by sheph · · Score: 1

    That's easy for him to say, but those norms will change with coordinated effort. If all the telecoms start charging what's everyone going to do? They're going to pay. Because to not pay means you don't get your content and no one is going to accept that (or at least not enough that it will make a difference). Choice doesn't matter when all the choices suck. We'll all piss and moan about it, but we'll never collectively hit them in the wallet where it would really matter.

    --
    I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
  32. Re: I hate all of you moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly my point. When people have nothing insightful to say about the content of a message, they attack the container. You illustrated that very well.

  33. Re: I hate all of you moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The container was ugly. A nice container is the same price.

    Get it?

  34. Re: I hate all of you moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I get is that focusing on one letter lets you sidestep the question at hand. Unless you're saying the typo prevented you from understanding the message?

  35. Loan Offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOAN OFFER

    Rescue Team offers loans to help you meet a variety of needs. We’ve provided over $3 Billion USD in Personal, Business and Commercial loans to over 25,000 business owners. Loans are approved within 72 hours of successful application. We offer loans from a minimum range of $30,000 USD/EURO to a maximum of $10,000,000.00 USD/EURO.

    WHAT YOU NEED TO APPLY

    *Be between ages 22 – 59 years.
    *Have a steady source of income that is verifiable.
    *Must be confirmed staff in present employment.
    *Have a functional current or savings bank account.
    *Have valid means of identification.

    Contact us today: rescueteamloans@rescueteam.com

    Call/Text: +1 (914) 200-7270

    We are certified and your privacy is 100% safe with us. Worry no more about your loans or finances.

    Get your instant loan approval today.