Is supply chain phone theft anymore a problem than say, laptop or TV theft? Why aren't they locking those too? And you can be 100% sure that this locking mechanism will be cracked, just like regular SIM-locking.
Also why 60 days? Why not 60 seconds? What if I want to travel during that 60 days and use a foreign SIM?
again, if you are going through all the trouble of stealing someone's identity, is a 60 days lock going to discourage you from stealing a phone? And this is supposing the lock is not crackable like the current SIM locks.
I use friendly because it allows me to access the messaging tab of the web interface which is blocked on my mobile browser because Facebook wants me to install its Facebook Messenger application.
If they banned ad blockers everybody would move to Firefox. They can't afford that. Somehow on Android, people don't move to Firefox so they still don't allow ad blockers in their browser.
You don't get it. Merchants can't say that, because they'd lose customers which would go to their competitor. The only merchants who could say that are other monopolies/oligopolies.
Not that easily. Visa and Mastercard owns the network. Google/Amazon would have to deploy millions of POS terminals all around the world in order to compete with Visa/Mastercard.
This is an obvious case where government intervention is required. To limit the fees the oligopoly can charge. It has been done in Australia and other places. Visa and Mastercard threatened to leave the country. They didn't.
The other providers don't offer it. It's a differentiator for them.
That's the whole point. There shouldn't be any differentiation in carriers. They should be dumb pipes. Just like there is no differentiation when you buy stocks or a Brent oil barrel.
The pain will increase since more lightning garbage accessories will be discarded. Have they made the switch 3 years ago we wouldn't be talking about lightning anymore.
Just because it was not the absolute worst example of net neutrality violation doesn't make it right. And it's not my problem if they don't have the technical means to whitelist ALL music streaming. The alternative is not to violate net neutrality to begin with.
The point is, without the zero-rated Facebook, they could offer maybe 3GB, 4GB or who knows, 10 GB for the same price, and most people would be better off.
I am not sure Videotron offer really fell in what most people considered zero rated.
Then "most people" would be wrong to think so.
They did it in a way that stayed somewhat neutral
No, they didn't. It's not neutral if you discriminate some packets over others. They discriminated against everything which isn't streaming music. And streaming music had a very narrow definition.
as an ISP since they did not target a specific music service.
A lot of ISP zero-rated Spotify, Videotron had over 20 music providers in the list by the end of the offer and they even let you suggest additional providers if your favorite one was not in the list. If it was technically possible to distinguish audio traffic on that providerâ(TM)s domains from other kind of traffic, they would add it to the list.
They didn't include my own server's personal music streaming service. But it doesn't matter. It was technically impossible to include all music services. But even if it was possible, it would still be a net neutrality violation as they discriminate against everything which isn't music.
I agree but you'd be surprised at the amount of idiots who think that zero-rated content is a good thing. They say that if we block carriers from doing it, they will offer the same plans without the zero-rated bonus. As if the extra bandwidth used by the zero-rated content was free.
Here (Canada) a carrier (Videotron) was forced (by the CRTC) to stop zero-rating music streaming since it has been ruled a net neutrality violation. I applauded but a lot of people said the government was making plans more expensive.
Wait, you are saying that the temperature has been increasing over the past 200 years. Right when we started massively burning fossil fuels. And this is supposed to falsify the claim that CO2 cause global warming?
thankfully, we have proxy data for years before that. And guess what, it's pretty flat overall, even if there was a medieval warm period.
Weather is localized to a single area. We are talking about the global temperature here. Having almost all the warmest years on record in the last decade is definitely a trend. And yes, only idiot zealots still deny AGW.
I am talking about today. Nobody in NATO would notice a decrease in US military spending. The US has high military spending because it suits themselves (and the military industry has a strong lobby), not out of generosity to defend its NATO allies, especially the major ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a non-solution to a non-problem.
Is supply chain phone theft anymore a problem than say, laptop or TV theft? Why aren't they locking those too?
And you can be 100% sure that this locking mechanism will be cracked, just like regular SIM-locking.
Also why 60 days? Why not 60 seconds? What if I want to travel during that 60 days and use a foreign SIM?
again, if you are going through all the trouble of stealing someone's identity, is a 60 days lock going to discourage you from stealing a phone? And this is supposing the lock is not crackable like the current SIM locks.
You really think 60 days is going to stop thief? It's not going to make any difference.
It doesn't protect from identity thief at all.
Just ban cell phone locking like Canada has done. It has no reason to exist.
thanks, I will check it out
I use friendly because it allows me to access the messaging tab of the web interface which is blocked on my mobile browser because Facebook wants me to install its Facebook Messenger application.
Does Metal allows that?
If they banned ad blockers everybody would move to Firefox. They can't afford that. Somehow on Android, people don't move to Firefox so they still don't allow ad blockers in their browser.
I'd still want an ad blocker. It's optional anyways. Don't like the performance? Don't install the extension.
You don't get it. Merchants can't say that, because they'd lose customers which would go to their competitor.
The only merchants who could say that are other monopolies/oligopolies.
Google or Amazon could end you.
Not that easily. Visa and Mastercard owns the network. Google/Amazon would have to deploy millions of POS terminals all around the world in order to compete with Visa/Mastercard.
This is an obvious case where government intervention is required. To limit the fees the oligopoly can charge.
It has been done in Australia and other places. Visa and Mastercard threatened to leave the country. They didn't.
That's how healthy competition develops.
No. What you are describing is monopolistic competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Monopolistic competition is a type of imperfect competition such that many producers sell products that are differentiated from one another
the goal is to achieve perfect competition, where various competitors offers the same goods at the market price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The other providers don't offer it. It's a differentiator for them.
That's the whole point. There shouldn't be any differentiation in carriers. They should be dumb pipes. Just like there is no differentiation when you buy stocks or a Brent oil barrel.
Net neutrality involve different treatment. That includes both charging a difference price or prioritizing.
The pain will increase since more lightning garbage accessories will be discarded. Have they made the switch 3 years ago we wouldn't be talking about lightning anymore.
The sooner they switch to USB-C, the less painful it's going to be. It's only a matter of when.
Just because it was not the absolute worst example of net neutrality violation doesn't make it right.
And it's not my problem if they don't have the technical means to whitelist ALL music streaming. The alternative is not to violate net neutrality to begin with.
The point is, without the zero-rated Facebook, they could offer maybe 3GB, 4GB or who knows, 10 GB for the same price, and most people would be better off.
Zero-rating should be banned.
I am not sure Videotron offer really fell in what most people considered zero rated.
Then "most people" would be wrong to think so.
They did it in a way that stayed somewhat neutral
No, they didn't. It's not neutral if you discriminate some packets over others. They discriminated against everything which isn't streaming music. And streaming music had a very narrow definition.
as an ISP since they did not target a specific music service.
A lot of ISP zero-rated Spotify, Videotron had over 20 music providers in the list by the end of the offer and they even let you suggest additional providers if your favorite one was not in the list. If it was technically possible to distinguish audio traffic on that providerâ(TM)s domains from other kind of traffic, they would add it to the list.
They didn't include my own server's personal music streaming service. But it doesn't matter. It was technically impossible to include all music services. But even if it was possible, it would still be a net neutrality violation as they discriminate against everything which isn't music.
I agree but you'd be surprised at the amount of idiots who think that zero-rated content is a good thing.
They say that if we block carriers from doing it, they will offer the same plans without the zero-rated bonus. As if the extra bandwidth used by the zero-rated content was free.
Here (Canada) a carrier (Videotron) was forced (by the CRTC) to stop zero-rating music streaming since it has been ruled a net neutrality violation. I applauded but a lot of people said the government was making plans more expensive.
AGW is well documented in scientific papers. There are easy to read and understand summaries for the general public. No excuse to still be a denier.
Wait, you are saying that the temperature has been increasing over the past 200 years. Right when we started massively burning fossil fuels.
And this is supposed to falsify the claim that CO2 cause global warming?
thankfully, we have proxy data for years before that. And guess what, it's pretty flat overall, even if there was a medieval warm period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Even the medieval warm period warmed much more slowly than what happened in the past 200 years.
Weather is localized to a single area. We are talking about the global temperature here.
Having almost all the warmest years on record in the last decade is definitely a trend. And yes, only idiot zealots still deny AGW.
I am talking about today. Nobody in NATO would notice a decrease in US military spending. The US has high military spending because it suits themselves (and the military industry has a strong lobby), not out of generosity to defend its NATO allies, especially the major ones.
Hi petrol prices will push public transport prices up,
Much less than the cost of driving a car, especially a big one.