A driver could lock a box. But, I want to keep it simple enough that a driver will actually use it.
I've seen boxes with digital codes (what if you get more than one package delivered), with directions to put the code in the TO address. Then, lots of stories about about drivers not using them. Even adding an open pad lock to attach is a big step.
Offer it in 2 or 3 colors, slap an Amazon swoosh on each side and the top that's less than an eighth of the area, and drop the price to $25 if you have Amazon Prime. Maybe a little smaller than that example, 50 gallon instead of 70.
The goal is to is to flood the market with them. This way there is a critical mass and delivery drivers might actually use them. Along with making it simple, "lift the lid drop the package in". It's still more than "drop it on the landing from the bottom step". That's what we're trying to overcome. If the trip is to far, it's not going to get used.
The added friction to the delivery driver needs to be as close none as possible. The added friction to the thief just needs to be enough to slow them down making it a pain. It doesn't need to defeat the guy following the delivery tuck and carrying a crow bar.
Amazon should provide (or sell really cheap) delivery boxes as part of Prime. Something that's just a resin deck box with a lid, no lock or anything.
They have to train drivers on the "key" process for home or garage access. Training them to just put packages in the box with the (small) Amazon logo and "Deliveries" sign should be easier.
With enough of them in use, all the delivery companies will get good at it. When it's just one house, it's a unique solution that's easy to not do.
Just a box keeping packages out of sight and dry is probably enough to stop a huge percent of theft and rain damage. I'm guessing rain damage happens more often than theft. Along with theft from someone driving down the street happening way more often than a thief following the delivery tuck. A box with no lock doesn't solve that one, since they'll know something is there, they saw the driver deliver it.
What consumer would consider net neutrality to be bad?
Any consumer who understood that "zero rating" is a target of the pro-NN people and who was benefiting from an existing zero rating system.
The problem is, it's more nuanced than just "zero rating" is a violation of NN or not.
As an entire type of service, "zero rating" isn't always a violation of NN. However, that just means some "zero rating" is a violation and others are not.
Zero rating for an entire class of something, or available to all providers at no cost, or at the customers control without the third party provider needing to care are all perfectly find zero rating schemes that do not conflict with NN at all.
Examples: All video from any source, perhaps in exchange for limiting the speed or quality, controlled by the user or open to all video providers to sign up for at no cost. All streaming audio from any source, perhaps to entice customers onto the network. Maybe audio providers still need to sign up, but at no cost to them. All "data X" from any source, at a reduced quality, with no choice by the user or the data providers, applied to all providers of "data X" with no exceptions.
Zero rating is a violation of NN when it's used to create winners and losers. When it creates a barrier between a network customer and a third party that's not involved in a business relationship with the network provider. In this scenario, the network provider is treating it's customers as a product to be sold to new content providers instead of as paying network customers looking for access to all content providers.
Examples: All video from provider X is zero rated and provider X pays the network provider for this privilege. All video from provider X is zero rated and provider X is owned by the network operator. All audio from provider X is zero rated and audio from other providers quality limited while provider X pays the network provider for this privilege.
In all the cases where it's an acceptable thing, it's a neutral network management practice. Something available for an entire class of data independent from whomever provides it. In all of these, the practice may impact the network provider in the market but it doesn't have any impact on the content provider market. One market isn't creating any advantage in the other market.
In all the cases where it's a violation, it's an example where the network customer is turned into a product with access to them being sold to a third party. It's using the network market to influence and distort the content market (or the reverse, but less likely). When the third party is the content arm of a large muti product corporation, it's using the one market to distort the other to give one an unequal advantage.
While the customer is currently enjoying the zero rating of Snorklewhack streaming audio on Flurble's network. It's a short term benefit that's actually not in the customers interest. In the long term it means that Snorklewhack doesn't need to provide as good a service as the next provider. After a time, the customer will be getting inferior service from Snorklewhack, locked in unless they change network providers in addition to streaming audio providers, assuming any other streaming audio providers can overcome the advantage Snorklewhack has and even exist.
There's probably other ways beyond NN to solve this problem. But, they all require regulation of some type. It's a choice of which regulation is the preferred one.
It's fine to add this and get it on the table. And to correctly point out that it needs to change. Getting to a root cause and fixing it there is a great idea.
But, the flip side is, you can't throw out the protections that are required because that root cause isn't fixed until AFTER you fix the root cause.
Saying we're going to get rid of B because while B provides some relief it doesn't actually solve problem A. But, at the same time, we're only going to work on solving A a some undefined future date. This doesn't help anyone.
Get up on a big platform, shout and advocate for fixing A as much as you can. Once A is actually fixed, THEN we can trash B as no longer needed. Until then, we should keep B as trashing B will just make A worse not better.
The debate today is that the FCC wants to get rid of the protection but hasn't offered any solution to the root cause at all. Getting them to fix local competition sounds great. But, we'll be dammed if the get rid of the protection before they even look at fixing competition. All the action and news, and the current fight is to say "Keep the protections in place now, don't trash them". None of this prevents work on fixing the root cause. None of it prevents changing the protection rules once there the competitive landscape changes.
Arguing we don't need the protection because they don't solve competition without actually getting any competition reform into any policies doesn't help.
Sounds lovely. However, NONE of this is on the table today.
On the table today, is keeping the lack of competition status quo until some future undefined change. And then either keeping the neutrality rules in place that offer protections to offset that lack of competition or destroying those protections.
It's nice to say, let's add competition. But, please, actually DO THAT BEFORE you gut and destroy all the protections. There's a definite sequence that needs to be followed to prevent harm.
If you're not going to actually deliver Internet, why call it an Internet service?
If providers called it an "online service" instead of an "Internet service", the average subscriber wouldn't notice nor care. They just want Facebook.
Possible. I like to hope they would, but it's totally possible.
But, what it would do is hopefully break and void any Public Utility Commission agreement and impact access to the right of way. All those things were done to deliver "Internet Access" not just some walled garden "online service" only. Of course the only impact that might have is to lower the number of Internet providers people have access to from the current few to 0.:(
You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse.
Aha, so you ADMIT that people would reasonably want traffic prioritized by source!!! It's just a matter of figuring out which source takes priority at which time. But it is something that people WANT, and it is very reasonable, and net neutrality is trying to take away as a possibility.
But lets be realistic. No one cares about shitty YouTube quality. They just want Netflix (and possibly HBO and a few other sources) without buffering.
I did not "admit" that people wanted priority by source. I pointed out that even YOU don't want priority by source.
You want your stuff to be faster than others stuff, for whatever site you happen to be using vs whatever site they're using. It's not the same thing.
ISPs already sell this difference. You can buy access at any speed they offer. If you buy 100 Mbps and others by 20 Mbps, they've sold you faster access than the other person.
I took your use of "that kids" to mean "other users of the network", could be anyone doesn't have to be kids. But, if you really meant, "kids in the same house as you", then just setup you own router to do QOS for the internal network to give them less priority. That's totally fine on your internal network and not a problem.
If you really did mean, "other users of the ISPs network", we're back at that the ISP should not be in the business of deciding which content is more important or which customers are more important than others. They sell an access product. They can sell different speeds of access already, or quantity of access (which I dislike caps, but that's at least neutral when applied to all and not when stuff is exempted), or committed vs best effort service. All fine. They don't get to pick which content is "better" though, that's abuse.
Here's a question: are you upset that the site/app you're reading/watching is using your bandwidth to serve ads to you?
If you're on a metered plan, you probably are.
Now take a step back (I know, it's hard) and pretend you're an ISP. Why do I, as an ISP, need to build out my network so that some Silicon Valley company can serve ads to my subscribers when the subscribers don't even want ads?
Because that's the entire definition of being an ISP, and Internet Service Provider.
If you're not going to actually deliver Internet, why call it an Internet service? Maybe build something like an "AOL Network" or a "CompuServe Network", "Your Company's Closed System Network" and sell that instead. Maybe people will buy it, maybe they will not. But, it's NOT "Internet Service" anymore, it's something else.
Let's try something else: 2% of an ISPs base is using 85% of the upstream and downstream bandwidth for torrents. Can you throttle their traffic?
I'm sure a lot of people will say "don't oversell your bandwidth." Yeah sure, welcome to reality. But is it fair to let 2% of your subscribers screw the other 98% of your subscribers? Those 98% are paying customers of both you the ISP and, say, Netflix. Why can't you touch that 2%?
Is throttling a violation of the "net neutrality" regs? I'll bet you don't know, because you never read them. Try reading them. It's not hard.
QOS is fine. As long as it wasn't source based by applied to everyone. If you want to set bittorrent traffic to a lower priority than other traffic so when the pipe is full it's slower, go for it. For bittorrent traffic to every source. If you as a company run you own bittorrent stuff for distributing whatever, it just needs to follow the same QOS rules.
Consumers benefit from prioritising traffic based on TYPE. They are HARMED by prioritizing it based on SOURCE.
That statement is inherently stupid. As a consumer, I want Netflix traffic in my house to take priority over web traffic OR YOUTUBE VIDEO that kids might be watching.
Sounds like I want traffic prioritized by SOURCE. Sounds like MOST people would want the same thing.
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.
You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. That's not the same thing.
If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse. Which would really be the same, your's over theirs.
That may very well be the legal definition. But, it's a really crappy marketing definition.
Normally, if you don't have a seat assignment, you might not get a seat. Having a reserved seat greatly increases your chance of actually getting on a flight, but doesn't guarantee it.
Having a boarding pass normally guarantees that you're on the plane.
Anyone that's a "no show" doesn't have a boarding pass. Trouble getting a boarding pass usually means you're late to check in and the flight was oversold. You'll be lucky to get on now. Similar to when you cannot reserve a seat at reservation time when normally possible. Presumably, people that checked in and got boarding passes are out the ticket if they "no show" after that.
Finally, actually getting on the plane and sitting in a seat that matches the boarding pass you scanned to get on, would mean you're on the flight, all risk of not making it because of overbooking is gone at this point. By the time you get here, all your checked baggage and carry-on bags are stowed and ready for the trip too.
What United is saying is that even at this point, there's a chance you're not making the trip. For whatever reason, nobody is talking about it in this light. That's one hell of a strong marketing message that "Even though you've reserved a ticket, paid for it, checked in, gotten a boarding pass, and boarded the plane, THERE'S STILL a chance we'll just kick you off because we need the seat and to bad you had plans".
People already have travel anxiety. Usually it let's up by the time they're in a seat. Now, you'll have entire United flights that are anxious right up until the door closes and you push back.
Normally, if you don't have a seat assignment, you might not get a seat. Having a reserved seat greatly increases your chance of actually getting on a flight, but doesn't guarantee it.
Having a boarding pass normally guarantees that you're on the plane.
Anyone that's a "no show" doesn't have a boarding pass. Trouble getting a boarding pass usually means you're late to check in and the flight was oversold. You'll be lucky to get on now.
Finally, actually BOARDING the plane and sitting in a seat that matches the boarding pass you scanned to get on, would mean you're on the flight, all risk of not making it because of overbooking is gone at this point. By the time you get here, all your checked baggage and carry-on bags are stowed and ready for the trip too.
What United is saying is that even at this point, there's a chance you're not making the trip. For whatever reason, nobody is talking about it in this light. That's one hell of a strong marketing message that "Even though you've reserved a ticket, paid for it, checked in, gotten a boarding pass, and boarded the plane, THERE'S STILL a chance we'll just kick you off because we need the seat and to bad you had plans".
People already have travel anxiety. Usually it let's up by the time they're in a seat. Now, you'll have entire United flights that are anxious right up until the door closes and you push back.
I found it interesting that the article states that there is "almost no chance of losing" if you buy enough tickets, but that's not a 100% guarantee. It will just be a matter of time before someone plays the odds and that unlikely event of losing money happens.
If someone else wins the jackpot, then the other payouts aren't increased and the "investment" plan doesn't work out.
So there is some risk and it goes up with the more people that are counting on the increased payouts and playing, since there's more likely to be a single winner. Since the payout are split across all winners, the more people that play at the same time dilute the winnings until it will no longer be profitable. At 2 or 3 or 4 groups gaming it this way, it works. At 50 no so much.
I lost my admin access within a couple of hours of giving notice. I didn't have time to clean up and they hadn't even designated my replacement for several days.
Paranoid management. I could have been working toward quitting for months and planted logic bombs everywhere. But once I gave 2 weeks notice, I became a threat in their minds.
Possible. But, just as likely part of their transition plan on figuring out what you actually do and how to do it without you was to not let you do anything on your own for the last 2 weeks you were there.
This way, if there's something you do every day or every week that keeps things working, you can't do it now and someone else can work with you to take care of it. Since they'll need to do it going forward after you're gone.
It's not always fear.
Loading the front rows first is absolutely ridiculous. While rows 1-5 fumble around trying to cram their stuff in the overhead compartments, rows 6-10 just have to wait until they figure it out, then they get to fumble around with their overhead compartments while 11-15 are blocked. If you load from the back first, people can fumble with their luggage all at the same time, and no isles ever get blocked in the process. It's just common sense, and I am very glad that I am not the only one that is dumbfounded every time they see this. Unless, you've got a seat in the front and patiently wait to load until the end only to find that the overhead bin is full of crap from someone sitting 15 rows back who blocked the isle anyway to put stuff in the first available spot they saw that was nowhere near their seat. Since they have to walk past it anyway.
Of course the easy solution to this is to just take the stuff out and let the attendant figure out that it belong to someone in the back of the plane. But that doesn't help turn around time.
b.3) Sell the code to someone to prove that you voted for someone. b.4) Hand over the code to someone to avoid a negative consequence, violence, monetary, or something else.
You forgot the biggest point/issue/problem - The Ads are defined in tags within the media itself. TIVO is basically saying - advertizers go crazy.
I haven't seen the agreements between TiVo and the Advertisers that buy this service. So, I don't know the details. I would hope that TiVo was looking out for it's own best interest and put some controls in the contract for how the tags can be used, along what happnes when the rules are broken. That doesn't stop the first offese, but should stop it from becomming a large scale problem.
You still have the VHS mentality. Fast forwarding 30 seconds shouldn't take a few seconds, it should take zero, like with replay TV.
That's not fast forwarding, that's skipping. And it still works just fine. Since the billboard is tied to tags in the broadcast, skipping ahead skips the tags too.
Currently while watching a commercial supported TV broadcast, an advertiser has a commercial break in the program where they show 30 seconds of video. While using a TiVo and fast forwarding, this 30 seconds of video is blurry and takes less than 30 seconds to play.
Based on how it's supposed to work, with the new tags. While watching a commercial supported TV broadcast, an advertiser has a commercial break in the program where they show 30 seconds of video. While using a TiVo and fast forwarding, this 30 seconds of video is overlayed with a different image optimized for shorter visible duration and takes the same amount of time as before that's less than 30 seconds to play.
There is no impact to the way the TiVo functions. There is no forced watching of ads. There is no new add popping up. It's simply a format shift from blurry video to a static image. It's a way to redefine the 30 second spot. It becomes a less than 30 second spot of variable duration depending on the fast forward speed.
The easiest way to opt out of ads on TV: Buy premium commercial free programming, like HBO, Showtime, Cinimax, Starz,...
Since this is a pilot of the new tags, that obviously isn't working the way it's supposed to, things do need to change. Since it displayed over regular content where it's not supposed to.
Things we don't know: Is the problem with the TiVo software? Is the problem with the broadcasters national feed? Is the problem with a specific cable companies regional feed? Were the tags added at the start of a commercial and still present throughout the rest of the broadcast?
All of those need to be addressed before any solution is possible.
To further clarify the black smoke, it was most likely caused by the shutdown, not the cause of the shutdown.
When the big transformers are switched of the grid, they often throw lots of sparks. These same transformers often leak oil. So now you have sparks and oil. This can lead to fire, with black smoke from burning oil.
So the fire isn't' the cause of the shutdown, it's the result of the shutdown. Of course, it all happens at the same time, so the news reports the possibility the other way.
This could lead to some really bad economic decision. eBay is not a fair marketplace, especially in areas like this. We're operating in the extreme portion of the demand curve here. These extremely rare (unless they sell thousands of them) items might be very sought after by the $300k/year executive who hates his morning drive. If they price further sales based on a few eBay auctions, they might end up only catering to the very rich.
Actually, there is already a maximum possible price someone should be willing to pay. Take the number of times you drive the route, and multiply it by the cost of a ticket for using the lane when you shouldn't. If you pay more than that for a sticker you should have just paid the fine.
The coolest part could be the sticker costs are directly coupled to the physical size and weight of the vehicle + efficiency.. A honda insight's sticker should cost $5.00 while a Hummer - H2 should cost $500.00
How would that help to reduce traffic congestion at all? Does a Hummer cause more traffic than a Honda Insight. The goal is to determine how much free flowing traffic is worth, not to improve individual efficiency. Setting the price at all, other than a minimum, would defeat the whole purpose.
The point is to auction off a FIXED number of passes, to determine what the going rate for using the traffic lane is. These could then be traded on the open market. This is the same approach as pollution certificates to reduce pollution. In this case, a second person gives you a free pass, otherwise you need to buy one. In the pollution example, you reduce pollution or buy an exemption. If someone really wanted to reduce traffic in the HOT lane, they could buy multiple stickers and now use the extras, reducing the total number of cars in the lane, similar to the Sierra club buying pollution rights and not polluting.
rewarding those that look for efficiency and safety while punishing the dangerous glutton just might be a radical enough idea to get someone's attention.
If this is goal, look at a variable rate for registration or emissions stickers. The gas tax produces a similar affect, since more efficient cars use less gas.
The plan from the article wouldn't have this effect at all. In fact, delivery trucks that are on a schedule would be a likely purchaser.
Slashdot Mirror
A driver could lock a box. But, I want to keep it simple enough that a driver will actually use it.
I've seen boxes with digital codes (what if you get more than one package delivered), with directions to put the code in the TO address. Then, lots of stories about about drivers not using them. Even adding an open pad lock to attach is a big step.
Something like this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079...
Offer it in 2 or 3 colors, slap an Amazon swoosh on each side and the top that's less than an eighth of the area, and drop the price to $25 if you have Amazon Prime. Maybe a little smaller than that example, 50 gallon instead of 70.
The goal is to is to flood the market with them. This way there is a critical mass and delivery drivers might actually use them. Along with making it simple, "lift the lid drop the package in". It's still more than "drop it on the landing from the bottom step". That's what we're trying to overcome. If the trip is to far, it's not going to get used.
The added friction to the delivery driver needs to be as close none as possible. The added friction to the thief just needs to be enough to slow them down making it a pain. It doesn't need to defeat the guy following the delivery tuck and carrying a crow bar.
Amazon should provide (or sell really cheap) delivery boxes as part of Prime. Something that's just a resin deck box with a lid, no lock or anything.
They have to train drivers on the "key" process for home or garage access. Training them to just put packages in the box with the (small) Amazon logo and "Deliveries" sign should be easier.
With enough of them in use, all the delivery companies will get good at it. When it's just one house, it's a unique solution that's easy to not do.
Just a box keeping packages out of sight and dry is probably enough to stop a huge percent of theft and rain damage. I'm guessing rain damage happens more often than theft. Along with theft from someone driving down the street happening way more often than a thief following the delivery tuck. A box with no lock doesn't solve that one, since they'll know something is there, they saw the driver deliver it.
What consumer would consider net neutrality to be bad?
Any consumer who understood that "zero rating" is a target of the pro-NN people and who was benefiting from an existing zero rating system.
The problem is, it's more nuanced than just "zero rating" is a violation of NN or not.
As an entire type of service, "zero rating" isn't always a violation of NN. However, that just means some "zero rating" is a violation and others are not.
Zero rating for an entire class of something, or available to all providers at no cost, or at the customers control without the third party provider needing to care are all perfectly find zero rating schemes that do not conflict with NN at all.
Examples:
All video from any source, perhaps in exchange for limiting the speed or quality, controlled by the user or open to all video providers to sign up for at no cost.
All streaming audio from any source, perhaps to entice customers onto the network. Maybe audio providers still need to sign up, but at no cost to them.
All "data X" from any source, at a reduced quality, with no choice by the user or the data providers, applied to all providers of "data X" with no exceptions.
Zero rating is a violation of NN when it's used to create winners and losers. When it creates a barrier between a network customer and a third party that's not involved in a business relationship with the network provider. In this scenario, the network provider is treating it's customers as a product to be sold to new content providers instead of as paying network customers looking for access to all content providers.
Examples:
All video from provider X is zero rated and provider X pays the network provider for this privilege.
All video from provider X is zero rated and provider X is owned by the network operator.
All audio from provider X is zero rated and audio from other providers quality limited while provider X pays the network provider for this privilege.
In all the cases where it's an acceptable thing, it's a neutral network management practice. Something available for an entire class of data independent from whomever provides it. In all of these, the practice may impact the network provider in the market but it doesn't have any impact on the content provider market. One market isn't creating any advantage in the other market.
In all the cases where it's a violation, it's an example where the network customer is turned into a product with access to them being sold to a third party. It's using the network market to influence and distort the content market (or the reverse, but less likely). When the third party is the content arm of a large muti product corporation, it's using the one market to distort the other to give one an unequal advantage.
While the customer is currently enjoying the zero rating of Snorklewhack streaming audio on Flurble's network. It's a short term benefit that's actually not in the customers interest. In the long term it means that Snorklewhack doesn't need to provide as good a service as the next provider. After a time, the customer will be getting inferior service from Snorklewhack, locked in unless they change network providers in addition to streaming audio providers, assuming any other streaming audio providers can overcome the advantage Snorklewhack has and even exist.
There's probably other ways beyond NN to solve this problem. But, they all require regulation of some type. It's a choice of which regulation is the preferred one.
https://newsblur.com/ Yes is costs a small amount of money but it works well. I have no other relation than being an early and still happy customer.
Bonus, because it costs money instead of selling ads, you're the actual customer and not a product being sold to someone else.
Also a customer, with 165 feeds, including Slashdot.
Let's make this real easy. Move all states that touch the Atlantic ocean to year-round Atlantic time. Sorted.
Poor Vermont. Left behind, stuck between NY and NH both an hour ahead.
It's fine to add this and get it on the table. And to correctly point out that it needs to change. Getting to a root cause and fixing it there is a great idea.
But, the flip side is, you can't throw out the protections that are required because that root cause isn't fixed until AFTER you fix the root cause.
Saying we're going to get rid of B because while B provides some relief it doesn't actually solve problem A. But, at the same time, we're only going to work on solving A a some undefined future date. This doesn't help anyone.
Get up on a big platform, shout and advocate for fixing A as much as you can. Once A is actually fixed, THEN we can trash B as no longer needed. Until then, we should keep B as trashing B will just make A worse not better.
The debate today is that the FCC wants to get rid of the protection but hasn't offered any solution to the root cause at all. Getting them to fix local competition sounds great. But, we'll be dammed if the get rid of the protection before they even look at fixing competition. All the action and news, and the current fight is to say "Keep the protections in place now, don't trash them". None of this prevents work on fixing the root cause. None of it prevents changing the protection rules once there the competitive landscape changes.
Arguing we don't need the protection because they don't solve competition without actually getting any competition reform into any policies doesn't help.
Sounds lovely. However, NONE of this is on the table today.
On the table today, is keeping the lack of competition status quo until some future undefined change. And then either keeping the neutrality rules in place that offer protections to offset that lack of competition or destroying those protections.
It's nice to say, let's add competition. But, please, actually DO THAT BEFORE you gut and destroy all the protections. There's a definite sequence that needs to be followed to prevent harm.
If you're not going to actually deliver Internet, why call it an Internet service?
If providers called it an "online service" instead of an "Internet service", the average subscriber wouldn't notice nor care. They just want Facebook.
Possible. I like to hope they would, but it's totally possible.
But, what it would do is hopefully break and void any Public Utility Commission agreement and impact access to the right of way. All those things were done to deliver "Internet Access" not just some walled garden "online service" only. Of course the only impact that might have is to lower the number of Internet providers people have access to from the current few to 0. :(
You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse.
Aha, so you ADMIT that people would reasonably want traffic prioritized by source!!! It's just a matter of figuring out which source takes priority at which time. But it is something that people WANT, and it is very reasonable, and net neutrality is trying to take away as a possibility.
But lets be realistic. No one cares about shitty YouTube quality. They just want Netflix (and possibly HBO and a few other sources) without buffering.
I did not "admit" that people wanted priority by source. I pointed out that even YOU don't want priority by source.
You want your stuff to be faster than others stuff, for whatever site you happen to be using vs whatever site they're using. It's not the same thing.
ISPs already sell this difference. You can buy access at any speed they offer. If you buy 100 Mbps and others by 20 Mbps, they've sold you faster access than the other person.
I took your use of "that kids" to mean "other users of the network", could be anyone doesn't have to be kids. But, if you really meant, "kids in the same house as you", then just setup you own router to do QOS for the internal network to give them less priority. That's totally fine on your internal network and not a problem.
If you really did mean, "other users of the ISPs network", we're back at that the ISP should not be in the business of deciding which content is more important or which customers are more important than others. They sell an access product. They can sell different speeds of access already, or quantity of access (which I dislike caps, but that's at least neutral when applied to all and not when stuff is exempted), or committed vs best effort service. All fine. They don't get to pick which content is "better" though, that's abuse.
Here's a question: are you upset that the site/app you're reading/watching is using your bandwidth to serve ads to you?
If you're on a metered plan, you probably are.
Now take a step back (I know, it's hard) and pretend you're an ISP. Why do I, as an ISP, need to build out my network so that some Silicon Valley company can serve ads to my subscribers when the subscribers don't even want ads?
Because that's the entire definition of being an ISP, and Internet Service Provider.
If you're not going to actually deliver Internet, why call it an Internet service? Maybe build something like an "AOL Network" or a "CompuServe Network", "Your Company's Closed System Network" and sell that instead. Maybe people will buy it, maybe they will not. But, it's NOT "Internet Service" anymore, it's something else.
Let's try something else: 2% of an ISPs base is using 85% of the upstream and downstream bandwidth for torrents. Can you throttle their traffic?
I'm sure a lot of people will say "don't oversell your bandwidth." Yeah sure, welcome to reality. But is it fair to let 2% of your subscribers screw the other 98% of your subscribers? Those 98% are paying customers of both you the ISP and, say, Netflix. Why can't you touch that 2%?
Is throttling a violation of the "net neutrality" regs? I'll bet you don't know, because you never read them. Try reading them. It's not hard.
QOS is fine. As long as it wasn't source based by applied to everyone. If you want to set bittorrent traffic to a lower priority than other traffic so when the pipe is full it's slower, go for it. For bittorrent traffic to every source. If you as a company run you own bittorrent stuff for distributing whatever, it just needs to follow the same QOS rules.
Consumers benefit from prioritising traffic based on TYPE. They are HARMED by prioritizing it based on SOURCE.
That statement is inherently stupid. As a consumer, I want Netflix traffic in my house to take priority over web traffic OR YOUTUBE VIDEO that kids might be watching.
Sounds like I want traffic prioritized by SOURCE. Sounds like MOST people would want the same thing.
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.
You don't really want traffic priority by source. You want your traffic to be more important than someone else's traffic. That's not the same thing.
If you watched YouTube Red and the kids watched Netflix, you would want the reverse. Which would really be the same, your's over theirs.
That may very well be the legal definition. But, it's a really crappy marketing definition.
Normally, if you don't have a seat assignment, you might not get a seat. Having a reserved seat greatly increases your chance of actually getting on a flight, but doesn't guarantee it.
Having a boarding pass normally guarantees that you're on the plane.
Anyone that's a "no show" doesn't have a boarding pass. Trouble getting a boarding pass usually means you're late to check in and the flight was oversold. You'll be lucky to get on now. Similar to when you cannot reserve a seat at reservation time when normally possible. Presumably, people that checked in and got boarding passes are out the ticket if they "no show" after that.
Finally, actually getting on the plane and sitting in a seat that matches the boarding pass you scanned to get on, would mean you're on the flight, all risk of not making it because of overbooking is gone at this point. By the time you get here, all your checked baggage and carry-on bags are stowed and ready for the trip too.
What United is saying is that even at this point, there's a chance you're not making the trip. For whatever reason, nobody is talking about it in this light. That's one hell of a strong marketing message that "Even though you've reserved a ticket, paid for it, checked in, gotten a boarding pass, and boarded the plane, THERE'S STILL a chance we'll just kick you off because we need the seat and to bad you had plans".
People already have travel anxiety. Usually it let's up by the time they're in a seat. Now, you'll have entire United flights that are anxious right up until the door closes and you push back.
This is exactly the problem.
Normally, if you don't have a seat assignment, you might not get a seat. Having a reserved seat greatly increases your chance of actually getting on a flight, but doesn't guarantee it.
Having a boarding pass normally guarantees that you're on the plane.
Anyone that's a "no show" doesn't have a boarding pass. Trouble getting a boarding pass usually means you're late to check in and the flight was oversold. You'll be lucky to get on now.
Finally, actually BOARDING the plane and sitting in a seat that matches the boarding pass you scanned to get on, would mean you're on the flight, all risk of not making it because of overbooking is gone at this point. By the time you get here, all your checked baggage and carry-on bags are stowed and ready for the trip too.
What United is saying is that even at this point, there's a chance you're not making the trip. For whatever reason, nobody is talking about it in this light. That's one hell of a strong marketing message that "Even though you've reserved a ticket, paid for it, checked in, gotten a boarding pass, and boarded the plane, THERE'S STILL a chance we'll just kick you off because we need the seat and to bad you had plans".
People already have travel anxiety. Usually it let's up by the time they're in a seat. Now, you'll have entire United flights that are anxious right up until the door closes and you push back.
I found it interesting that the article states that there is "almost no chance of losing" if you buy enough tickets, but that's not a 100% guarantee. It will just be a matter of time before someone plays the odds and that unlikely event of losing money happens.
If someone else wins the jackpot, then the other payouts aren't increased and the "investment" plan doesn't work out. So there is some risk and it goes up with the more people that are counting on the increased payouts and playing, since there's more likely to be a single winner. Since the payout are split across all winners, the more people that play at the same time dilute the winnings until it will no longer be profitable. At 2 or 3 or 4 groups gaming it this way, it works. At 50 no so much.
I lost my admin access within a couple of hours of giving notice. I didn't have time to clean up and they hadn't even designated my replacement for several days.
Paranoid management. I could have been working toward quitting for months and planted logic bombs everywhere. But once I gave 2 weeks notice, I became a threat in their minds.
Possible. But, just as likely part of their transition plan on figuring out what you actually do and how to do it without you was to not let you do anything on your own for the last 2 weeks you were there. This way, if there's something you do every day or every week that keeps things working, you can't do it now and someone else can work with you to take care of it. Since they'll need to do it going forward after you're gone. It's not always fear.
http://www.charter.com/onlineadvertising
Includes the URL to opt out (not as a link though), which is a cookie for connect.charter.com
But, I can't think of how a cookie can actually create an opt out of this. And it's a huge inconvenience to require a cookie.
Really wish FiOS would come out this far.
b.3) Sell the code to someone to prove that you voted for someone.
b.4) Hand over the code to someone to avoid a negative consequence, violence, monetary, or something else.
Opps, now we have a problem.
Currently while watching a commercial supported TV broadcast, an advertiser has a commercial break in the program where they show 30 seconds of video. While using a TiVo and fast forwarding, this 30 seconds of video is blurry and takes less than 30 seconds to play.
...
Based on how it's supposed to work, with the new tags. While watching a commercial supported TV broadcast, an advertiser has a commercial break in the program where they show 30 seconds of video. While using a TiVo and fast forwarding, this 30 seconds of video is overlayed with a different image optimized for shorter visible duration and takes the same amount of time as before that's less than 30 seconds to play.
There is no impact to the way the TiVo functions.
There is no forced watching of ads.
There is no new add popping up.
It's simply a format shift from blurry video to a static image.
It's a way to redefine the 30 second spot. It becomes a less than 30 second spot of variable duration depending on the fast forward speed.
The easiest way to opt out of ads on TV:
Buy premium commercial free programming, like HBO, Showtime, Cinimax, Starz,
Since this is a pilot of the new tags, that obviously isn't working the way it's supposed to, things do need to change. Since it displayed over regular content where it's not supposed to.
Things we don't know:
Is the problem with the TiVo software?
Is the problem with the broadcasters national feed?
Is the problem with a specific cable companies regional feed?
Were the tags added at the start of a commercial and still present throughout the rest of the broadcast?
All of those need to be addressed before any solution is possible.
To further clarify the black smoke, it was most likely caused by the shutdown, not the cause of the shutdown. When the big transformers are switched of the grid, they often throw lots of sparks. These same transformers often leak oil. So now you have sparks and oil. This can lead to fire, with black smoke from burning oil. So the fire isn't' the cause of the shutdown, it's the result of the shutdown. Of course, it all happens at the same time, so the news reports the possibility the other way.
Here is an example of 2 computers that appear to be the same except for the OS. Neither include monitor.
Without OS $599 With OS $698