Nope, it's a slippery slope because you are claiming your worst case situation is an inevitable result. If it's not inevitable, and in fact T-Mobile is happy with the plan as it is than it's nonsense to criticise the plan on the grounds of what you fear it could become.
Except that's not the same situation at all. This is more like if Comcast let their own video feeds though for free, as well as Netflix's and any other services who chose to participate.
"Until that happens, the perception of possible abuse is insufficient to prove this is anything other than an effort by T-Mobile to better serve their customers."
How about stop with the FUD and get back to us when that situation happens, ok? As the plan is now all video services can freely join and no one is getting any kickbacks and T-Mobile is not decreasing data plans either.
The reality is that video data is not the same as other data. Throttling all data increases load times for web pages and slows down apps and downloads. Throttling video streams reduces the bitrate of the stream that is sent (assuming a typical modern streaming service) so that I get a lower resolution video but probably doesn't result in any noticeable change to the user who is watching on a 5" screen. So it's perfectly reasonable for a user to wish to have only their video data throttled.
Actually, what I really want to know is why T-Mobile doesn't just apologize and disable it for everybody. Problem solved imho.
They already pissed off the people who don't want Bing On enabled, now you want them to piss off the people who do want it, too?
Honestly though, I feel the people who did get pissed off about this really need to get a life. Yes, T-Mobile should have made this opt-in, but what's done is done and anyone who is aware of the program and doesn't like it for whatever reason can disable it in less time than it takes to post an angry comment online.
This is a slippery slope argument. When and if a carrier offers a Binge On-like program but exclusively applying to their preferred partners than it will be a terrible violation of net neutrality and an unacceptable situation. As long as Bing On is freely offered to any video provider who would like to take advantage of it than we have nothing like the situation you are concerned about.
Sure, but the examples given in this article aren't attempting to do that. Discovering a new and unknown source of potential energy would require basic physics research, not tinkering with magnets, something that is well understood to not be a source of free energy.
Let's not pretend that technology in the hands of smart criminal's can't make things much, much more difficult for police. Trailing suspects and intercepting their phone calls isn't exactly going to do much when the criminals are using strong encryption for all of their communication.
Thanks for the clarification. An article I read specifically said that the ruling did classify ISPs as common carriers, it may very well have been a poorly written article.
Planets are a fraction of a percent of the mass of the solar system. When studying the structure of the galaxy astronomers could just use the sun and ignore the mass of all the planets and it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Anyone who wasn't able to learn that fact already by reading three sentences into the summary is not going to have read this far into the comments to learn it now.
Except in this case, the only reason we can observe them is because they have the star right behind them. Somehow I think super advanced space invaders would be smarter than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it's a slippery slope because you are claiming your worst case situation is an inevitable result. If it's not inevitable, and in fact T-Mobile is happy with the plan as it is than it's nonsense to criticise the plan on the grounds of what you fear it could become.
Except that's not the same situation at all. This is more like if Comcast let their own video feeds though for free, as well as Netflix's and any other services who chose to participate.
"Until that happens, the perception of possible abuse is insufficient to prove this is anything other than an effort by T-Mobile to better serve their customers."
How about stop with the FUD and get back to us when that situation happens, ok? As the plan is now all video services can freely join and no one is getting any kickbacks and T-Mobile is not decreasing data plans either.
The reality is that video data is not the same as other data. Throttling all data increases load times for web pages and slows down apps and downloads. Throttling video streams reduces the bitrate of the stream that is sent (assuming a typical modern streaming service) so that I get a lower resolution video but probably doesn't result in any noticeable change to the user who is watching on a 5" screen. So it's perfectly reasonable for a user to wish to have only their video data throttled.
Actually, what I really want to know is why T-Mobile doesn't just apologize and disable it for everybody. Problem solved imho.
They already pissed off the people who don't want Bing On enabled, now you want them to piss off the people who do want it, too?
Honestly though, I feel the people who did get pissed off about this really need to get a life. Yes, T-Mobile should have made this opt-in, but what's done is done and anyone who is aware of the program and doesn't like it for whatever reason can disable it in less time than it takes to post an angry comment online.
This is a slippery slope argument. When and if a carrier offers a Binge On-like program but exclusively applying to their preferred partners than it will be a terrible violation of net neutrality and an unacceptable situation. As long as Bing On is freely offered to any video provider who would like to take advantage of it than we have nothing like the situation you are concerned about.
Any provider is free to join the program, T-Mobile doesn't decide.
They don't show favoritism though, as any provider can freely join the program.
Is meta moderation still even a thing? I can't remember the last time I was asked to do it.
At least that means they'll have to support Unicode finally.
I'll give you my uid if I can ever figure out what my original username was.
It's not cynicism if the negativity is deserved.
Absolutely. The flip side of technology is that it can make the job much easier for police when dealing with not so bright crooks.
Sure, but the examples given in this article aren't attempting to do that. Discovering a new and unknown source of potential energy would require basic physics research, not tinkering with magnets, something that is well understood to not be a source of free energy.
Let's not pretend that technology in the hands of smart criminal's can't make things much, much more difficult for police. Trailing suspects and intercepting their phone calls isn't exactly going to do much when the criminals are using strong encryption for all of their communication.
Most of the time ride sharing is more car sharing than ride sharing. That's unlikely to change with driverless cars.
Thanks for the clarification. An article I read specifically said that the ruling did classify ISPs as common carriers, it may very well have been a poorly written article.
Planets are a fraction of a percent of the mass of the solar system. When studying the structure of the galaxy astronomers could just use the sun and ignore the mass of all the planets and it wouldn't make much of a difference.
I feel sorry for you if that's typical of the humans you deal with. Maybe it would do you some good to spend less time here on slashdot.
Anyone who wasn't able to learn that fact already by reading three sentences into the summary is not going to have read this far into the comments to learn it now.
Ron Paul, not Rand. Rand tries, but he's not as consistent as his father, for better or worse.
I guess it's true, some men just want to watch the world burn.
Not a law, the FCC decision last year to treat internet providers as common carriers.
Except in this case, the only reason we can observe them is because they have the star right behind them. Somehow I think super advanced space invaders would be smarter than that.