>"Do you happen to know if that has changed? and if so, what the current reasoning is?"
Due to HIPAA, fax remains very important in the healthcare field. It is considered a "secure" transport/channel, just like the US mail. Meanwhile, Email is not considered "secure", unless it and/or the attachments are encrypted (and with no PHI in the subject or unencrypted body). And there is no "good" (good = easy, quick, standardized, compatible, universal) standard for Email encryption, unfortunately.
Fax "just works", meets the regulations, is easy, is well-known, is relatively fax [now], is universal [in the industry], has one standard, and they all have it already. It will be difficult to unseat faxing for transmission of PHI between disparate parties.
>"In the age of secure upload, I couldn't believe it, but she said that only one college she works with regularly uses 100% secure-upload, while everyone else is 100% fax."
That is because there is a single fax standard. And it works. However, there is no single secure, standard, and easy way to send electronic documents without faxing. It sucks too. This is why healthcare stuff is almost always US mailed or faxed.
The closest one can come, it seems, it to scan to an encrypted PDF and then Email it as an attachment.... but you have to make sure that:
1) You somehow get the password to the receiving party THROUGH A DIFFERENT CHANNEL (like voice or US Mail).
2) You have no PHI (protected health information) or anything else confidential in the body or subject of the Email.
Because it ties up a phone line for minutes per page. And given the dearth of land lines, the one I have left has better uses.
Unless you or the receiver has a horrible quality POTS line, or a 1980's fax machine, it will not take "minutes per page". More like 5 to 25 seconds per page, depending on content and resolution.
>How many of those doctors, service workers, and others are required by law or regulation to use FAXes?
Due to HIPAA, fax remains very important in the healthcare field. It is considered a "secure" transport/channel, just like the US mail. Meanwhile, Email is not considered "secure", unless it and/or the attachments are encrypted (and with no PHI in the subject or unencrypted body). And there is no "good" (good = easy, quick, standardized, compatible, universal) standard for Email encryption, unfortunately.
>"I thought that was true only of Windows Store,[...]allowing users to install applications from outside the Store."
I will admit I don't know much about it, other than what little I read. Android allows installation outside the store. Do does MacOS. IOS does not. Not sure about MS-Windows 10 ARM, but the articles make it sound like it will at least be difficult?
>"You can already get Chrome built for ARM64 on Linux, how hard is switching the Windows build to ARM64?"
Microsoft is not *allowing* other browsers (not based on the "edge" engine). It isn't that it can't be done. Microsoft is "managing" their additional, shiny, newest "walled garden" for the best "user experience" I suppose...
>"[...]without a native version for ARM it's difficult to take ARM-powered Windows 10 devices seriously for many"
I would think it would be just as [if not more] difficult to take MS-Windows 10 ARM seriously without Firefox. And as far as I am aware, there is none, yet. Let's see just how serious Microsoft is about being "open"...
>"People like the associations the smell invokes "
That might be true, but not true as an absolute generality. Some people, myself included, just like the smell, itself. And it varies wildly. For example, from the parent post- I like the smell of paint thinner, but hate the smell of acetone. I have to assume that some of it has to do with genetics and not associations.
>"Fairgrounds have already perfected VR with rows of seats that move"
This is the exact opposite. In the example you provide- they are moving you AND working with your eyes to tell you that you ARE moving. In the shoes example I highlighted, they are trying to lie to you and tell you that you are NOT moving but moving you, anyway.
Interestingly, we seem to adapt more readily to the former as opposed to the latter.... probably because we are very, very used to things like movies and TV that show us moving when we are not, so we are conditioned to recognize and handle it easily.
>"The tracking would know when you're too close to the virtual walls of your VR area, and the system would wheel you back into place."
And your inner ear (balance and acceleration) would immediately know you were being moved without actually wanting to move and it could make you sick as a dog- just like being sea-sick. It is a neat idea, but it is far from seamless or natural. In fact, it might even amplify other contradictory signals being fed into your eyes (vision) and ears (hearing). Knowing me, I would be super sick:)
>"So you **are** watching the ads. You're just doing it in fast motion"
Well, no and yes. On those that are not skip-compatible, I am zooming past them at very high speed. About 5 seconds to skip through 4 or 5 minutes of them.
>"I just watched a coupe of movies on YouTube. The ads occur 10-15 minutes apart and are one ad long, which is sometimes as short as a five second flash screen."
That's not too horrible. But I am guessing if the content is more current/important/expensive, the ads would eventually start approaching what is done on broadcast/cable TV; if not now, then when it gets popular.
>"Content with adds is most of what you pay the cable company twice for."
No, because I record everything on a TiVo and skip whatever I want. I haven't been forced to watch ads for 25 years and won't start now. Perhaps some people can tolerate it, I can't. This is why "streaming" is particularly dangerous- it is easy for a service to start adding ads that can't be skipped or fast-forwarded through.
Haven't listened to ad-laden radio for just as long.
>"No warrant is needed for public information available from a private source. That's the "beauty" of the current system for law enforcement, why they like to merely be a subscriber."
+1
Agreed. And that needs to change. And probably sooner than later. Because ANYTHING the police/FBI/HLS/whatever want, there will be a "private contractor" there to provide it.
>"When you're parked, rules change. Not a perfect solution, but it might be possible to legally obfuscate one's license plate when parked."
You might be onto something, but that would only hold if the car was parked on private property. This might include most parking lots, since they are not public streets vs. on-street parking or on public/government land.
In any case, I bet if one of those trolling police/other tracking cars found something like that in a private parking lot, they would ASSUME you were trying to hide something, and get out and un-obscure it to see what was going on...
Exactly. I was wondering the same thing when I read the summary. Voice recognition on a "X" isn't really any different than on a "Y" or "Z". Now, if the *methodology* they are using is considerably different/improved, I would think THAT could be patentable, but not simply that a phone can perform voice recognition. Otherwise, it is a matter for copyright.
Software patents are horribly abused. Ultimately, consumers are always who suffer due to higher prices, fewer new products, and the chilling of all innovation.
>"I bet it'll come with two whole years of updates! Two years!!!"
Yeah, like the unlocked Moto G5, which cost $189 at Costco and just updated to 8.1... 2 years is just around the corner. Not bad for less than half the price.
I do take it you were being sarcastic about the 2 years, and I agree. It is hard to believe that 2 years is considered exceptional... to me, that should be a bare minimum, not something to be proud of.
>"for the affordable phone market. The price is expected to be around $400-500."
Yeah, wow. I bought my perfectly fine, UNLOCKED Moto G5 Plus from Costco last year for $189 (and now it just upgraded itself to Android 8.1!). AND it has a headphone jack (along with SD card, fingerprint sensor, decent cameras, etc). And now the Moto G6 is going on sale at Costco soon for around that same price.
Since after the Nexus 5, Google has completely forgotten what "reasonable" or "affordable" means. I can't believe people spend over a thousand dollars on a stupid phone now.
>"Why would you NOT want to be âoestuckâ with a phone which doesnâ(TM)t require extra dongles and overpriced, easily lost earbuds?"
I think you misread what he said. He wants a reason to leave the iPhone 6. And was contemplating switching to the Pixel but didn't bother, because they removed the headphone jack.
My point on all this is that somehow a headphone jack is cast into the "lite" or "cheap" or non-high-end category now. Just like wanting a phone that isn't GIANT meant you automatically wanted a "budget" phone with slow processor, paltry memory, etc.
>"Broadens the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to levy civil penalties of up to $10,000 per call"
*CIVIL* penalty. So nothing will change. It needs to be a CRIMINAL penalty with a way to tip off for enforcement. NOBODY is going to do the work needed to try and find out who it is so they can spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to "sue" them.
>"Extends the window for the FCC to catch and take civil enforcement action against"
So the FCC will take civil action? Doesn't do much of squat right now on that front. Every few years we hear of maybe one high-profile case. And how has that worked out? They could increase suing by 100 times and it wouldn't make a dent.
>"Brings together the Department of Justice..."
Yawn
>"Requires providers of voice services to adopt call authentication technologies, enabling a telephone carrier to verify that incoming calls are legitimate before they reach consumersâ(TM) phones."
THAT has some glimmer of hope. Not much though, since it only helps with spoofing and tracking by the end user. Doesn't actually stop the calls.
>"I'm also confused at how anyone can be confused when using Google for directions. I can understand a learning curve on the new features, but getting directions is very easy and has only gotten easier lately."
Agreed. My issue is that there is so much "JUNK" and pop-ups and screen-stealing cards and such that it is much harder to use the MAP portion on small screens, especially after doing a search. Directions are easy. What is not as easy is browsing and zooming and exploring because of the lack of real-estate. And the interruptions are very annoying- asking me about ratings, and photos, and events, and things I don't care about. Example, the bottom bar with "explore, commute, and for you", none of which I want but robs valuable space and with buttons to accidentally hit. It can't be removed. I wish they would have more user settings to suppress the stuff not used.
>"It's only when the service is oversubscribed that one person's usage affects another."
There is no real definition of "oversubscribed". On a land network, you could have 100Mb of bandwidth and tell 10 customers they all have 10Mb and partition it that way. But that won't work if you don't partition it and it becomes a shared network (like most are). All you can say in that example is "up to 100Mb", which is somewhat meaningless. And on mobile, there is no telling how many people will be in a cell, and what they will be doing at any moment. At what point is a shared network bandwidth with a variable number of people using it "oversubscribed"? Thus, regardless of your paid plan, if it is not dedicated bandwidth or partitioned down to just a handful of users, then your usage will affect others; sometimes more than others, but it will have an effect.
By many definitions I can think of, *ALL* networks are "oversubscribed." I am sure there are industry standards that read something like oversubscribed means that in a rolling 10 minute window, average peak usage is below 80% on that pipe/segment.
Now, I am not saying that ISP's shouldn't continuously upgrade their services and bandwidth when possible (and I am also not saying that all ISP's are doing what they should). But customers will suck away those upgrades pretty quickly as more and more data-hungry applications and users evolve over time... and they are usually not willing to pay more, either. Not that long ago, 2Mb/s average for mobile users might be fine for most users, and suddenly, it wasn't; rinse and repeat.
>"The answer, then, is to limit bandwidth by subscriber. If you want to transfer more data faster then you can pay more to do it."
I do agree that could help. But consumers want and demand so-called "unlimited" now. They can't be bothered with paying for what they use or want to use... they think limits are all just arbitrary... which is especially not true on mobile data. There are limits on the region, the backbone, the tower, and the radio waves.... none of which are cheap or easy to upgrade. And when it comes to density problems, adding just a single additional cell tower to a network can have an initial cost of $100,000 to $1,000,000 with lots of continuous upkeep cost "forever". It is mind-boggling.
>"Perhaps you are unaware that HugesNet transcodes streaming video to bring it down to whatever level you'll pay for. Seriously, go look at their plans."
I am aware that some ISP's (mobile or not) do such things. And I agree that it is wrong and misleading. But my arguments in favor of having some network traffic management are not with the assumption that such secret-behind-the-scenes-transcoding is the norm. I would consider that a separate (and yet interesting) issue.
>"Also, if you use a VPN, they throttle all other uses to 30% of your purchased speed. Straight from their customer service rep that I spoke to on the phone yesterday."
I also think that is the wrong thing for an ISP to do. In such a case, they are assuming that the customer is either doing something wrong/illegal or just trying to work around the other QOS measures they have implemented. Often it is neither- it is just trying to protect privacy.
It would be far "fairer" to adjust speeds based on how much total bandwidth is available at that second compared to how much the user is potentially hogging at the time. Or to just charge for how much data passes though, period.... but as we have seen, consumers have rejected that model in favor of the golden but untrue "unlimited" ploy.
>"I think it makes more sense to share the bandwidth equally amongst customers rather than trying to pick on any protocol."
Overall, I like your comments a lot. But I will say that certain protocols (services) really do need a certain amount of bandwidth to be of any value.... that is where QOS can be helpful. And on another hand, it doesn't seem unreasonable to limit some types of services, in "reasonable" ways such that it doesn't overly harm other users. The example I would use is that on limited bandwidth, it doesn't seem "fair" that users of less bandwidth doing simple browsing should have their experience ruined (postulate web sites being so slow to load that they can't reasonable tolerate browsing anymore) simply because a bunch of teenagers "have" to watch streaming video everywhere they go. I will acknowledge there isn't any perfect solution.... but that includes just saying that there is no room, ever, for traffic management of some type.
Personally, I have always loved the shaping model that will degrade service based on a moving "fairness" window when the bandwidth is saturated (but not otherwise). It works something like "speed boost" where users who are sipping data are assured higher priority and hogs start to get downgraded speed the longer they persist in being hogs. Eventually it then returns to "normal" as the usage changes. Those responsible with data usage get rewarded. Interestingly, the easiest way to have such a thing with no technology at all, is generally to do away with bundled data plan "tiers" and charge for whatever data the customer actually uses.... once users realize what they do (or don't do) has an affect on their wallet, there is incentive to play better:) When you tell someone something is "unlimited" (even though it really isn't on any mobile provider), behavior is not the same as when something is presented as limited or with cost. The negative outcome is further re-enforced by misleading advertising by the mobile industry using words like "super fast" and "50Mb/s speeds!!!" and "unlimited".
None of what I am saying means I don't think mobile data providers should continue to improve services or bandwidth. That, to me, is another issue.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Except when faxes get sent to the wrong place [bbc.com]" or get hacked [wired.com]"
Indeed. But that also happens with:
1) Phone calls
2) US Mail
3) UPS/Fedex
4) Email
>"Do you happen to know if that has changed? and if so, what the current reasoning is?"
Due to HIPAA, fax remains very important in the healthcare field. It is considered a "secure" transport/channel, just like the US mail. Meanwhile, Email is not considered "secure", unless it and/or the attachments are encrypted (and with no PHI in the subject or unencrypted body). And there is no "good" (good = easy, quick, standardized, compatible, universal) standard for Email encryption, unfortunately.
Fax "just works", meets the regulations, is easy, is well-known, is relatively fax [now], is universal [in the industry], has one standard, and they all have it already. It will be difficult to unseat faxing for transmission of PHI between disparate parties.
>"In the age of secure upload, I couldn't believe it, but she said that only one college she works with regularly uses 100% secure-upload, while everyone else is 100% fax."
That is because there is a single fax standard. And it works. However, there is no single secure, standard, and easy way to send electronic documents without faxing. It sucks too. This is why healthcare stuff is almost always US mailed or faxed.
The closest one can come, it seems, it to scan to an encrypted PDF and then Email it as an attachment.... but you have to make sure that:
1) You somehow get the password to the receiving party THROUGH A DIFFERENT CHANNEL (like voice or US Mail).
2) You have no PHI (protected health information) or anything else confidential in the body or subject of the Email.
Because it ties up a phone line for minutes per page. And given the dearth of land lines, the one I have left has better uses.
Unless you or the receiver has a horrible quality POTS line, or a 1980's fax machine, it will not take "minutes per page". More like 5 to 25 seconds per page, depending on content and resolution.
>How many of those doctors, service workers, and others are required by law or regulation to use FAXes?
Due to HIPAA, fax remains very important in the healthcare field. It is considered a "secure" transport/channel, just like the US mail. Meanwhile, Email is not considered "secure", unless it and/or the attachments are encrypted (and with no PHI in the subject or unencrypted body). And there is no "good" (good = easy, quick, standardized, compatible, universal) standard for Email encryption, unfortunately.
Faxing is annoying and slow. But it "just works."
>"I thought that was true only of Windows Store,[...]allowing users to install applications from outside the Store."
I will admit I don't know much about it, other than what little I read. Android allows installation outside the store. Do does MacOS. IOS does not. Not sure about MS-Windows 10 ARM, but the articles make it sound like it will at least be difficult?
>"You can already get Chrome built for ARM64 on Linux, how hard is switching the Windows build to ARM64?"
Microsoft is not *allowing* other browsers (not based on the "edge" engine). It isn't that it can't be done. Microsoft is "managing" their additional, shiny, newest "walled garden" for the best "user experience" I suppose...
>"[...]without a native version for ARM it's difficult to take ARM-powered Windows 10 devices seriously for many"
I would think it would be just as [if not more] difficult to take MS-Windows 10 ARM seriously without Firefox. And as far as I am aware, there is none, yet. Let's see just how serious Microsoft is about being "open"...
>"People like the associations the smell invokes "
That might be true, but not true as an absolute generality. Some people, myself included, just like the smell, itself. And it varies wildly. For example, from the parent post- I like the smell of paint thinner, but hate the smell of acetone. I have to assume that some of it has to do with genetics and not associations.
>"Fairgrounds have already perfected VR with rows of seats that move"
This is the exact opposite. In the example you provide- they are moving you AND working with your eyes to tell you that you ARE moving. In the shoes example I highlighted, they are trying to lie to you and tell you that you are NOT moving but moving you, anyway.
Interestingly, we seem to adapt more readily to the former as opposed to the latter.... probably because we are very, very used to things like movies and TV that show us moving when we are not, so we are conditioned to recognize and handle it easily.
>"The tracking would know when you're too close to the virtual walls of your VR area, and the system would wheel you back into place."
And your inner ear (balance and acceleration) would immediately know you were being moved without actually wanting to move and it could make you sick as a dog- just like being sea-sick. It is a neat idea, but it is far from seamless or natural. In fact, it might even amplify other contradictory signals being fed into your eyes (vision) and ears (hearing). Knowing me, I would be super sick :)
>"So you **are** watching the ads. You're just doing it in fast motion"
Well, no and yes. On those that are not skip-compatible, I am zooming past them at very high speed. About 5 seconds to skip through 4 or 5 minutes of them.
>"I just watched a coupe of movies on YouTube. The ads occur 10-15 minutes apart and are one ad long, which is sometimes as short as a five second flash screen."
That's not too horrible. But I am guessing if the content is more current/important/expensive, the ads would eventually start approaching what is done on broadcast/cable TV; if not now, then when it gets popular.
>"Not to be nitpicky but the content still has adds, you're just removing them. Or did TIVO ever get it's ad skip feature back ?"
Both. And yes. Most content still has ads, you can fast forward through anything, and some shows allow a skip feature.
>"Either way if you're comfortable with it, more power to you."
As long as we don't move to a model that forces unskippable/forwardable ads on most content, I am happy people have choices.
>"Content with adds is most of what you pay the cable company twice for."
No, because I record everything on a TiVo and skip whatever I want. I haven't been forced to watch ads for 25 years and won't start now. Perhaps some people can tolerate it, I can't. This is why "streaming" is particularly dangerous- it is easy for a service to start adding ads that can't be skipped or fast-forwarded through.
Haven't listened to ad-laden radio for just as long.
>"No warrant is needed for public information available from a private source. That's the "beauty" of the current system for law enforcement, why they like to merely be a subscriber."
+1
Agreed. And that needs to change. And probably sooner than later. Because ANYTHING the police/FBI/HLS/whatever want, there will be a "private contractor" there to provide it.
>"When you're parked, rules change. Not a perfect solution, but it might be possible to legally obfuscate one's license plate when parked."
You might be onto something, but that would only hold if the car was parked on private property. This might include most parking lots, since they are not public streets vs. on-street parking or on public/government land.
In any case, I bet if one of those trolling police/other tracking cars found something like that in a private parking lot, they would ASSUME you were trying to hide something, and get out and un-obscure it to see what was going on...
>"This really shouldn't be patentable."
Exactly. I was wondering the same thing when I read the summary. Voice recognition on a "X" isn't really any different than on a "Y" or "Z". Now, if the *methodology* they are using is considerably different/improved, I would think THAT could be patentable, but not simply that a phone can perform voice recognition. Otherwise, it is a matter for copyright.
Software patents are horribly abused. Ultimately, consumers are always who suffer due to higher prices, fewer new products, and the chilling of all innovation.
>"I bet it'll come with two whole years of updates! Two years!!!"
Yeah, like the unlocked Moto G5, which cost $189 at Costco and just updated to 8.1... 2 years is just around the corner. Not bad for less than half the price.
I do take it you were being sarcastic about the 2 years, and I agree. It is hard to believe that 2 years is considered exceptional... to me, that should be a bare minimum, not something to be proud of.
>"for the affordable phone market. The price is expected to be around $400-500."
Yeah, wow. I bought my perfectly fine, UNLOCKED Moto G5 Plus from Costco last year for $189 (and now it just upgraded itself to Android 8.1!). AND it has a headphone jack (along with SD card, fingerprint sensor, decent cameras, etc). And now the Moto G6 is going on sale at Costco soon for around that same price.
Since after the Nexus 5, Google has completely forgotten what "reasonable" or "affordable" means. I can't believe people spend over a thousand dollars on a stupid phone now.
>"Why would you NOT want to be âoestuckâ with a phone which doesnâ(TM)t require extra dongles and overpriced, easily lost earbuds?"
I think you misread what he said. He wants a reason to leave the iPhone 6. And was contemplating switching to the Pixel but didn't bother, because they removed the headphone jack.
My point on all this is that somehow a headphone jack is cast into the "lite" or "cheap" or non-high-end category now. Just like wanting a phone that isn't GIANT meant you automatically wanted a "budget" phone with slow processor, paltry memory, etc.
>"Broadens the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to levy civil penalties of up to $10,000 per call"
*CIVIL* penalty. So nothing will change. It needs to be a CRIMINAL penalty with a way to tip off for enforcement. NOBODY is going to do the work needed to try and find out who it is so they can spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to "sue" them.
>"Extends the window for the FCC to catch and take civil enforcement action against"
So the FCC will take civil action? Doesn't do much of squat right now on that front. Every few years we hear of maybe one high-profile case. And how has that worked out? They could increase suing by 100 times and it wouldn't make a dent.
>"Brings together the Department of Justice..."
Yawn
>"Requires providers of voice services to adopt call authentication technologies, enabling a telephone carrier to verify that incoming calls are legitimate before they reach consumersâ(TM) phones."
THAT has some glimmer of hope. Not much though, since it only helps with spoofing and tracking by the end user. Doesn't actually stop the calls.
>"Directs the FCC to initiate a rulemaking..."
Yawn again.
Color me pessimistic but still hopeful...
>"I'm also confused at how anyone can be confused when using Google for directions. I can understand a learning curve on the new features, but getting directions is very easy and has only gotten easier lately."
Agreed. My issue is that there is so much "JUNK" and pop-ups and screen-stealing cards and such that it is much harder to use the MAP portion on small screens, especially after doing a search. Directions are easy. What is not as easy is browsing and zooming and exploring because of the lack of real-estate. And the interruptions are very annoying- asking me about ratings, and photos, and events, and things I don't care about. Example, the bottom bar with "explore, commute, and for you", none of which I want but robs valuable space and with buttons to accidentally hit. It can't be removed. I wish they would have more user settings to suppress the stuff not used.
>"It's only when the service is oversubscribed that one person's usage affects another."
There is no real definition of "oversubscribed". On a land network, you could have 100Mb of bandwidth and tell 10 customers they all have 10Mb and partition it that way. But that won't work if you don't partition it and it becomes a shared network (like most are). All you can say in that example is "up to 100Mb", which is somewhat meaningless. And on mobile, there is no telling how many people will be in a cell, and what they will be doing at any moment. At what point is a shared network bandwidth with a variable number of people using it "oversubscribed"? Thus, regardless of your paid plan, if it is not dedicated bandwidth or partitioned down to just a handful of users, then your usage will affect others; sometimes more than others, but it will have an effect.
By many definitions I can think of, *ALL* networks are "oversubscribed." I am sure there are industry standards that read something like oversubscribed means that in a rolling 10 minute window, average peak usage is below 80% on that pipe/segment.
Now, I am not saying that ISP's shouldn't continuously upgrade their services and bandwidth when possible (and I am also not saying that all ISP's are doing what they should). But customers will suck away those upgrades pretty quickly as more and more data-hungry applications and users evolve over time... and they are usually not willing to pay more, either. Not that long ago, 2Mb/s average for mobile users might be fine for most users, and suddenly, it wasn't; rinse and repeat.
>"The answer, then, is to limit bandwidth by subscriber. If you want to transfer more data faster then you can pay more to do it."
I do agree that could help. But consumers want and demand so-called "unlimited" now. They can't be bothered with paying for what they use or want to use... they think limits are all just arbitrary... which is especially not true on mobile data. There are limits on the region, the backbone, the tower, and the radio waves.... none of which are cheap or easy to upgrade. And when it comes to density problems, adding just a single additional cell tower to a network can have an initial cost of $100,000 to $1,000,000 with lots of continuous upkeep cost "forever". It is mind-boggling.
>"Perhaps you are unaware that HugesNet transcodes streaming video to bring it down to whatever level you'll pay for. Seriously, go look at their plans."
I am aware that some ISP's (mobile or not) do such things. And I agree that it is wrong and misleading. But my arguments in favor of having some network traffic management are not with the assumption that such secret-behind-the-scenes-transcoding is the norm. I would consider that a separate (and yet interesting) issue.
>"Also, if you use a VPN, they throttle all other uses to 30% of your purchased speed. Straight from their customer service rep that I spoke to on the phone yesterday."
I also think that is the wrong thing for an ISP to do. In such a case, they are assuming that the customer is either doing something wrong/illegal or just trying to work around the other QOS measures they have implemented. Often it is neither- it is just trying to protect privacy.
It would be far "fairer" to adjust speeds based on how much total bandwidth is available at that second compared to how much the user is potentially hogging at the time. Or to just charge for how much data passes though, period.... but as we have seen, consumers have rejected that model in favor of the golden but untrue "unlimited" ploy.
>"I think it makes more sense to share the bandwidth equally amongst customers rather than trying to pick on any protocol."
Overall, I like your comments a lot. But I will say that certain protocols (services) really do need a certain amount of bandwidth to be of any value.... that is where QOS can be helpful. And on another hand, it doesn't seem unreasonable to limit some types of services, in "reasonable" ways such that it doesn't overly harm other users. The example I would use is that on limited bandwidth, it doesn't seem "fair" that users of less bandwidth doing simple browsing should have their experience ruined (postulate web sites being so slow to load that they can't reasonable tolerate browsing anymore) simply because a bunch of teenagers "have" to watch streaming video everywhere they go. I will acknowledge there isn't any perfect solution.... but that includes just saying that there is no room, ever, for traffic management of some type.
Personally, I have always loved the shaping model that will degrade service based on a moving "fairness" window when the bandwidth is saturated (but not otherwise). It works something like "speed boost" where users who are sipping data are assured higher priority and hogs start to get downgraded speed the longer they persist in being hogs. Eventually it then returns to "normal" as the usage changes. Those responsible with data usage get rewarded. Interestingly, the easiest way to have such a thing with no technology at all, is generally to do away with bundled data plan "tiers" and charge for whatever data the customer actually uses.... once users realize what they do (or don't do) has an affect on their wallet, there is incentive to play better :) When you tell someone something is "unlimited" (even though it really isn't on any mobile provider), behavior is not the same as when something is presented as limited or with cost. The negative outcome is further re-enforced by misleading advertising by the mobile industry using words like "super fast" and "50Mb/s speeds!!!" and "unlimited".
None of what I am saying means I don't think mobile data providers should continue to improve services or bandwidth. That, to me, is another issue.