Slashdot Mirror
Countries With Zero Rating Have More Expensive Wireless Broadband Than Countries Without It
A comprehensive multi-year study by the non-profit Epicenter.works, comparing the 30 member countries of the European Union (EU) on net neutrality enforcement, has found that zero rating business practices by wireless carriers have increased the cost of wireless data compared to countries without zero rating. From a report: This directly contradicts all of the assertions by major wireless carriers that their zero rating practices are "free data" for consumers. Based on the evidence, zero rating not only serves as a means to enhance ISPs' power over the Internet, but it's also how they charge consumers more money for wireless service. Zero rating was originally going to be banned by the FCC under the General Conduct Rule, but when the FCC changed leadership the agency promptly green lighted and encouraged the industry to engage in zero rating practices before it began its repeal of net neutrality.
This is my shocked face. :|
It's a fairly simple rule .. if a telco claims to do something which benefits their consumers, it's a fucking lie.
By the time you are in management at one of those, you are an undeniable sociopath who only cares about doing whatever it takes to maximize profits, and your own bonus.
Nobody in management at such a company isn't a complete and utter sack of monkey crap.
Epicenter.works is an advocacy organization, not a research organization. So this "study" may be a bit biased. They have an agenda to push.
I'm also thoroughly convinced it's an exercise in futility attempting to convince Trump supporters to stop voting against their own best interests.
If you want to change their votes, perhaps you could start by listening to their concerns, instead of telling them they are too stupid to vote properly. That is about the same as telling them they are deplorable, which, if you recall, wasn't a successful strategy.
The myth that Republicans vote against their own interests is based on two fallacies:
1. That they share your views about what their "best interests" are. They don't.
2. That poor states like Mississippi voted 100% Republican. Guess what? They didn't. Poor people in red states vote blue. It is the middle class where the Democrats lost.
if their vote directly hurts them, which it often does, then it is voting against their best interests.
for example republicans vote to cut the 3 large saftey nets, which that group largely depend on.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I thought you guys were in favor of the free market? That's the entire point of NN - to allow a free market on the internet, rather than allowing the ISP oligopoly to decide winners and losers.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Not all of us are communication nerds. Please define terms. Who is rating what at zero using what units?
Non-white Poor people in red states vote blue
FTFY. And it's sill a minority of the poor people.
There is a trick to getting one issue voters to vote for your party.
The best example I can think of is the evangelical anti-abortion people. For years you could rally them to your cause by proclaiming that you were anti-abortion and didn't believe in evolution. And while in recent years, the candidate wishing to offer succor to this group had to temper their anti evolution screeds to "Well, I'm not a scientist", because anti evolution is on the same plane as flat earth , chemtrails and moon landing fakes. But if you proclaim to be anti abortion, the anti abortion voters will vote for you no matter what else you do. The present occupant is the perfect example. Dalliances with porn stars and paying them off while his own wife is with child would seem to be sinful - after all, I know the evangelicals were in hyperventilation mode that a president got a consensual blowjob from a woman. Ah.. remember the Party of the High Moral Ground and "Values Matter!" days? Good heady times, amirite? But no, they support him in all he does.
Now seriously evangelicals, do you think that a man with the curriculum vitae of the present occupant is really anti-abortion? But if he says the right words - you slobber over him more than Stormy Daniels ever did.
Then again, the Evangelicals have the stick-to-itivity of Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner, you have to give them that. They'll come back to vote for whoever says the magic words again and again. The shivering truth is that as long as all a politician has to say is that he wants to make abortion illegal and you'll supplicate at his or her feet, you can bet that they'll make certain to use that Trump card again and again. (no pun intended) If they actually did outlaw it, they'd lose a big wedge issue.
And this is why the party of NO! always falls down the little hole in the shithouse when they are in the majority. They don't really have any actual ideas other than saying no.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.