How many lives are saved per yer simply due to modern technology. Trucks bring products to build generating stations that provide electricity that allows for advanced research into medicines, fresh food available all the time, cars allow deathly ill people to reach hospitals in time before they die, refrigeration keeps people from getting sick, cell phones allow you to call for help when you're in danger, everything we take for granted as simple "creature comforts" are actually prolonging our lives. You know, modern society. I wonder what the number of ((lives modern society saves) - 5000) is? Or rather, what percentage of (lives modern saved by society) is this horrible number 5000. I wonder how many zeros would come after the decimal place before the significant figures start.
More sky-is-falling, flat-earth bullshit from liberals who would rather have us live in mud huts and bathe in our own filth than have a modern free society.
It's a lot more complicated than that but yes, I agree with your sentiment. The catch is that the customers they are booting off are actually using Verizon's spectrum. Verizon essentially sublet their own spectrum to some rural carriers in order to build LTE networks in places they didn't want to spend the money to do so. Until just recently, however, they advertised this LTEiRA (LTE in Rural America partnership) coverage as NATIVE Verizon service.
This was marketed as a win-win for Verizon and the other carriers, as Verizon now has coverage in all these rural areas they didn't want to spend money on, and the rural carrier gets access to spectrum that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to utilize. Where things get murky is here: people who live or spend the majority of their time in those coverage areas should technically have service directly from the rural carrier, not Verizon. However, either through falsifying their billing address or just plain ineptitude and/or unscrupulous salesmanship from Verizon, many of these customers had Verizon's own branded service but were permanently roaming on the rural carriers.
The rural carriers were almost assuredly fine with this, as they were probably (definitely?) making more money off of the roaming bills to Verizon for those subscribers than they would have if they actually serviced them directly. I only say probably, as the terms of those agreements are obviously closely held corporate secrets, which the average person will never be privy to, but it's common knowledge in the industry that roaming is charged out the proverbial ass by the rural carriers to the big guys. The customers were obviously fine with this, as they got access to better deals on Verizon than they would from regional and local rural carriers that always have to charge more money for service simply due to economies of scale, they just don't have the subscriber base to offer the same price points as the Big 4.
Again, not excusing Verizon's behavior, but they were the ones losing out in this situation. I say this because up until this point, Verizon has NEVER enforced ANY kind of roaming limits. Not on their CDMA 1X/EVDO roaming, and not on LTE. People have had native Verizon service and permanently roamed on carriers like Bluegrass, Appalachian, US Cellular, and others for literally years and never heard a peep out of Verizon. I'm sure the vast, vast majority of these subscribers never knew there was any problem with what they were doing, and seeing as Verizon signed up many of these customers outside of their service area, they shouldn't be absolved of responsibility here seeing that they were advertising this as part of their standard LTE coverage area.
It sucks, but most of these customers, even ones that weren't using "substantial" amounts of data (some using 1GB a month or less are being kicked off) will just have to bite the bullet and pay the cost of their service to the native local rural carrier and be done with it. But further complicating matters, there are roaming-only networks like Wireless Partners in Maine that don't even sell their own service, they only exist to service Verizon roaming customers, and from what I understand there aren't many other options at least in that specific area. These networks will either have to find a way to sell service natively or take a serious hit to their bottom line.
But all that being said, if Verizon has been granted a license to use spectrum in a given area, they should absolutely be held accountable for providing service there, regardless of whether or not they do it through a third-party or not. The whole situation is complicated, unfortunate for the customers affected, and still smells of simple greed from Verizon but at the end of the day, it's only cell phone service. People will figure it out and life will go on.
Did you just arrive out of the DeLorean, doc? Android and iOS are the only two competitors in the phone/tablet space. If iOS is unsuitable for the GP's uses, the parent poster wanted to know what he's using Android for, since that's the only other option when it comes to mainstream supported mobile devices other than laptops. And since the A11 Bionic chip doesn't power a laptop, the reason the question was asked is plainly obvious.
Well, when the norm in modern society is mentally-stunted man children who are unable to think for themselves lest they be branded a Nazi, it would make sense that the only people who still have a little bit of common sense would be prepubescent children who have yet to be fully indoctrinated into collectivism.
It's anything but funny. "Books for adults" is a code-word for books by communist liberals.
CNN's lies would make Goebbels blush. But they all learned this from the same place, so it should be of no surprise that CNN can find some cockamamie story to promote to try and deflect. That's all lieberals can do, deflect, project, and blame. It's sickening at this point.
Zello is already not working in many areas. Do you realize the amount of infrastructure required to transmit something as simple as a VOIP message over a cellular network?
Do you realize that a simple handheld transceiver (with or without a repeater) can transmit analog voice traffic even when the cellular networks are completely down or overloaded and the internet infrastructure in an area has been destroyed?
The internet is what will struggle to stay relevant when the shit hits the fan. Sure, it makes an analog handheld look like ancient technology on a sunny day, but when the central offices are underwater and cell sites are laying horizontally on the ground, you'll be glad someone has one.
The quote is from fucking Wired. I expect nothing less from these out of touch assholes. Or Slashdot for that matter, but that's another story altogether.
Google is the most schizophrenic company in the history of incorporation. They're like a petulant child who gets a new shiny toy, then gets bored with it, throws it away, then wants a new one the next day.
The best thing to do is refuse to use any and all Google products, and maybe they'll go away.
Absolutely not. An iPhone is only a status symbol to poor people in the trailer parks who don't know any better.
There IS a reason besides fanboyism that Apple has 95% of the profits, and it's tightly integrated software and hardware solutions that do what they're supposed to, all day every day.
Sure, an iPhone isn't as exciting or cutting edge in some regards as some of the flashy gimmicky Android toys out there (the ones that cost just as much as an iPhone, mind you). Just like a Toyota Camry isn't as exciting as a Dodge Challenger R/T, but guess which one makes more money? The vast majority of people just want a usable and reliable mobile product.
Sure, an iPhone costs more than an entry-level $150 Android. It's also not a piece of shit like every entry-level $150 Android. But the Android phones that actually compete with iPhones cost nearly as much and you still get much less as far as usability and hardware quality is concerned.
At least we agree on the group of people who wish to remove the democratic element from the elections in Germany, whether or not we agree on their name.
So, what's the answer? How can Amtrak provide a reliable connection to all users while guaranteeing that everyone can download gigs upon gigs of apps and stream 4K video without sacrificing anything? The only thing that comes to mind is some kind of speed tier, where everyone just gets throttled down to some low, kbps range of bandwidth that's wide open.
Then, the purists will just bitch that throttling should be illegal. The purist in me says that they should forego providing Wi-Fi service at all, and leave it up to the end-user to provide their own cellular connection and be done with it.
I get that everyone thinks every Internet connection should be open and unfettered. The problem is that every connection just isn't robust enough to handle that kind of traffic.
I whole-heartedly agree that any connection that I pay for should be free from restrictions and treat all traffic equally. But using some kind of public Wi-Fi, which Amtrak's service would essentially be? It would be unusable if everyone onboard the train was trying to update GBs worth of apps.
I really don't even care about video throttling on cellular connections. It makes sense from a network management standpoint. As long as content isn't being blocked outright, the message can still get through. Unfortunately, if you read between the lines of the original Net Neutrality guidelines, the proposed rules did exactly the opposite . There was sneaky language in there about no blocking of lawful content. Lawful where? If one backwater jurisdiction in rural Alabama was to make porn illegal, does that then make it illegal for all providers to block PornHub?
We're already on a slippery slope with all the bandying about of the term "hate speech" here in the states, even though the First Amendment protects it, that doesn't mean local jurisdictions couldn't still pass feel-good (to their bases, obviously) legislation to ban certain things, and while it wouldn't hopefully pass muster with the higher courts, it might take a while before the laws get struck down, if ever in today's scary climate of people in black masks trying to attack freedom of speech and expression.
If San Francisco were to make conservative speech illegal, does that mean Verizon can block access to, say, Breitbart? If Texas were to ban communist speech, could AT&T then block access to Mother Jones? Leaving these loopholes in place opens the door to much wider content restrictions than we have now. I don't disagree that a provider you're paying needs to provide access to the ENTIRE internet, without regards to the content. If anything, the current proposed rules don't go far enough in my opinion, and when it comes to free speech and the open internet, there should be no half-measures. Freedom to access all, period. Someone somewhere can succeed in making something they don't like illegal, that doesn't mean that it actually is illegal, and that doesn't mean that anyone should have the right to block it.
If it's illegal today, there are already rules in place to remove that content from the internet, and any provider will gladly remove illegal material in a heartbeat. The end-user ISPs don't need to be able to wield that kind of power, and this would just codify that power. As it stands today, no provider is blocking access to any legal content, because they'll just lose subscribers if they do. The market is still working, we don't need another law unless it goes all the way in fully protecting the free and open internet.
No shit, if they don't want to give up customers private data, stop fucking logging it. Verizon, your plans are now unlimited. There is no longer any business need for domestic call logs (international calls are still subject to interception, as they always have been), data logs, or any other kind of logging of communications between two domestic parties. You can't give up the information you don't have. Lead by fucking example. Log nothing unless under the order of a signed warrant describing the party to be logged.
Of course, this will never happen, because Verizon is as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey (as is Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al.) as they have exactly zero desire for the gravy train of government money pouring into them to stop if they no longer have the sweet, sweet data they keep on all the citizens. Verizon is ostensibly just a "service provider" and should make their money providing service, not data mining for profit. If they really wanted to make a change, they could do it, today. Now, before anyone starts talking about how they'd be run out of business by the deep state if they did so, think about this: I'm positive that if there exists one large company that can't be blackmailed by the government, it's the fucking landline phone provider of Washington, DC!
The rest of the bottom-feeding companies would have to go out of business, of course, since tracking peoples every thought and idea is their sole profit center. No one forces you to use those other services though. But yes, I agree, they don't care one bit. Let's see big telecom lead us into the warrantless spying-free future! I won't be holding my breath.
So "Nazi Party Donor" and "Black Lifes Matter" are arguing with each other, and no one has yet realized that they have UIDs that are almost identical and are obviously satire accounts?
I get it, but this guy isn't that much younger than me. Maybe if it was a 15 year old kid or something...I know what a telegraph is even though I've never even seen a telegram let alone used the equipment!
I am an Apple fan. I am under no impression that most things they do are at all innovative. What they do, however, is implement things very well that are sometimes half-assed on other platforms.
The reason I really enjoy my Apple devices isn't because they do anything that I can't do on other platforms, it's because things work consistently the way I'd expect, every time. If I want to hack things or run random binaries and experiment around with unproven technologies, I'll do it on my PC.
When I need an appliance that operates as expected when I need it to, it's Apple all the way. I know that isn't what you want to hear, but it's the truth.
No. I'm saying that 10Mbps is just fine for watching mobile video.
Wait...can, or should? Of course they shouldn't change data in transit based on any of those factors. They absolutely CAN. That technology is a decade old or more.
And I don't think a basic rate-limit is "changing data in transit", it just forces the client and server to negotiate a different acceptable rate of transfer. The data hasn't been altered between the two endpoints. Or are you just being stupidly disingenuous?
Sure I have. It's still not meant to be used as a primary home internet connection. There's a reason wireless is also called "mobile". It's designed to be used while you're on the go.
I actually use my tethering extensively, sometimes even *gasp* to binge-watch videos on Netflix on my laptop (usually at the airport or a hotel out in the sticks when I'm out of town on business), that's why I understand the situation so well! Those are situations where I just need some mindless entertainment but for fuck's sake I don't need 4K in those situations. But when I'm at home watching my 70" TV that can actually benefit from UHD video, I use my fixed-line wired internet connection. Why would I want to use a shitty cellular connection at home where I actually care about video quality?
And honestly, I usually use my T-Mobile $30 plan to tether, because most of my usage on the go IS video, which is zero-rated at 1.5Mbps so I can watch as much of it as I want without shitting up the network for everyone else.
Look, I'm as pro-net-neutrality as the next guy, but when you have people with the attention span of a gnat loading video after video in UHD on a shared wireless link just to lose interest after 20 seconds (after half the video has loaded), it probably makes a lot of sense from a network management standpoint to limit the videos to 10Mbps. T-Mobile limits most of their video to 1.5Mbps, but since they're the tech fanboy sweetheart no one bats an eye at that!
Note that I don't disagree with T-Mobile's approach, either. But ho-lee-fuck is Verizon getting a lot of shit for quietly limiting video to 7 times T-Mobile's video data rate. I'm sure that everyone can get along just fine only watching their mobile video in 1080p on their 5" screen. And before someone chimes in with "what about the rurrral users who can only get cellular data", then I guess a trade off to living in the country is you only get 1080p video from Netflix. Poor babies.
Sure, this could be a slippery slope to silencing dissenting speech on the internet. I get it. But until CNN, MSNBC (or Infowars or Breitbart) are being blackholed, I'll pass on this stupid battle. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Every "front page of the Internet" we've ever had fails once they start overcomplicating things. Unfortunately they haven't yet reached the "death throes", but I've got popcorn ready for when they do.
Slashdot Mirror
How many lives are saved per yer simply due to modern technology. Trucks bring products to build generating stations that provide electricity that allows for advanced research into medicines, fresh food available all the time, cars allow deathly ill people to reach hospitals in time before they die, refrigeration keeps people from getting sick, cell phones allow you to call for help when you're in danger, everything we take for granted as simple "creature comforts" are actually prolonging our lives. You know, modern society. I wonder what the number of ((lives modern society saves) - 5000) is? Or rather, what percentage of (lives modern saved by society) is this horrible number 5000. I wonder how many zeros would come after the decimal place before the significant figures start.
More sky-is-falling, flat-earth bullshit from liberals who would rather have us live in mud huts and bathe in our own filth than have a modern free society.
It's a lot more complicated than that but yes, I agree with your sentiment. The catch is that the customers they are booting off are actually using Verizon's spectrum. Verizon essentially sublet their own spectrum to some rural carriers in order to build LTE networks in places they didn't want to spend the money to do so. Until just recently, however, they advertised this LTEiRA (LTE in Rural America partnership) coverage as NATIVE Verizon service.
This was marketed as a win-win for Verizon and the other carriers, as Verizon now has coverage in all these rural areas they didn't want to spend money on, and the rural carrier gets access to spectrum that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to utilize. Where things get murky is here: people who live or spend the majority of their time in those coverage areas should technically have service directly from the rural carrier, not Verizon. However, either through falsifying their billing address or just plain ineptitude and/or unscrupulous salesmanship from Verizon, many of these customers had Verizon's own branded service but were permanently roaming on the rural carriers.
The rural carriers were almost assuredly fine with this, as they were probably (definitely?) making more money off of the roaming bills to Verizon for those subscribers than they would have if they actually serviced them directly. I only say probably, as the terms of those agreements are obviously closely held corporate secrets, which the average person will never be privy to, but it's common knowledge in the industry that roaming is charged out the proverbial ass by the rural carriers to the big guys. The customers were obviously fine with this, as they got access to better deals on Verizon than they would from regional and local rural carriers that always have to charge more money for service simply due to economies of scale, they just don't have the subscriber base to offer the same price points as the Big 4.
Again, not excusing Verizon's behavior, but they were the ones losing out in this situation. I say this because up until this point, Verizon has NEVER enforced ANY kind of roaming limits. Not on their CDMA 1X/EVDO roaming, and not on LTE. People have had native Verizon service and permanently roamed on carriers like Bluegrass, Appalachian, US Cellular, and others for literally years and never heard a peep out of Verizon. I'm sure the vast, vast majority of these subscribers never knew there was any problem with what they were doing, and seeing as Verizon signed up many of these customers outside of their service area, they shouldn't be absolved of responsibility here seeing that they were advertising this as part of their standard LTE coverage area.
It sucks, but most of these customers, even ones that weren't using "substantial" amounts of data (some using 1GB a month or less are being kicked off) will just have to bite the bullet and pay the cost of their service to the native local rural carrier and be done with it. But further complicating matters, there are roaming-only networks like Wireless Partners in Maine that don't even sell their own service, they only exist to service Verizon roaming customers, and from what I understand there aren't many other options at least in that specific area. These networks will either have to find a way to sell service natively or take a serious hit to their bottom line.
But all that being said, if Verizon has been granted a license to use spectrum in a given area, they should absolutely be held accountable for providing service there, regardless of whether or not they do it through a third-party or not. The whole situation is complicated, unfortunate for the customers affected, and still smells of simple greed from Verizon but at the end of the day, it's only cell phone service. People will figure it out and life will go on.
Did you just arrive out of the DeLorean, doc? Android and iOS are the only two competitors in the phone/tablet space. If iOS is unsuitable for the GP's uses, the parent poster wanted to know what he's using Android for, since that's the only other option when it comes to mainstream supported mobile devices other than laptops. And since the A11 Bionic chip doesn't power a laptop, the reason the question was asked is plainly obvious.
Or are you just being obtuse?
Well, when the norm in modern society is mentally-stunted man children who are unable to think for themselves lest they be branded a Nazi, it would make sense that the only people who still have a little bit of common sense would be prepubescent children who have yet to be fully indoctrinated into collectivism.
It's anything but funny. "Books for adults" is a code-word for books by communist liberals.
CNN's lies would make Goebbels blush. But they all learned this from the same place, so it should be of no surprise that CNN can find some cockamamie story to promote to try and deflect. That's all lieberals can do, deflect, project, and blame. It's sickening at this point.
Zello is already not working in many areas. Do you realize the amount of infrastructure required to transmit something as simple as a VOIP message over a cellular network?
Do you realize that a simple handheld transceiver (with or without a repeater) can transmit analog voice traffic even when the cellular networks are completely down or overloaded and the internet infrastructure in an area has been destroyed?
The internet is what will struggle to stay relevant when the shit hits the fan. Sure, it makes an analog handheld look like ancient technology on a sunny day, but when the central offices are underwater and cell sites are laying horizontally on the ground, you'll be glad someone has one.
No, thanks. In fact, nothing has ever shown me that the government deserves anything but contempt from me.
The only thing I'll willingly give any government is the middle finger.
The quote is from fucking Wired. I expect nothing less from these out of touch assholes. Or Slashdot for that matter, but that's another story altogether.
Google is the most schizophrenic company in the history of incorporation. They're like a petulant child who gets a new shiny toy, then gets bored with it, throws it away, then wants a new one the next day.
The best thing to do is refuse to use any and all Google products, and maybe they'll go away.
Absolutely not. An iPhone is only a status symbol to poor people in the trailer parks who don't know any better.
There IS a reason besides fanboyism that Apple has 95% of the profits, and it's tightly integrated software and hardware solutions that do what they're supposed to, all day every day.
Sure, an iPhone isn't as exciting or cutting edge in some regards as some of the flashy gimmicky Android toys out there (the ones that cost just as much as an iPhone, mind you). Just like a Toyota Camry isn't as exciting as a Dodge Challenger R/T, but guess which one makes more money? The vast majority of people just want a usable and reliable mobile product.
Sure, an iPhone costs more than an entry-level $150 Android. It's also not a piece of shit like every entry-level $150 Android. But the Android phones that actually compete with iPhones cost nearly as much and you still get much less as far as usability and hardware quality is concerned.
At least we agree on the group of people who wish to remove the democratic element from the elections in Germany, whether or not we agree on their name.
The globalists wouldn't want to have another Trump on their hands in the most powerful nation in Europe!
The only people who you really have to worry about hacking the vote are based out of Brussels, not Moscow.
So, what's the answer? How can Amtrak provide a reliable connection to all users while guaranteeing that everyone can download gigs upon gigs of apps and stream 4K video without sacrificing anything? The only thing that comes to mind is some kind of speed tier, where everyone just gets throttled down to some low, kbps range of bandwidth that's wide open.
Then, the purists will just bitch that throttling should be illegal. The purist in me says that they should forego providing Wi-Fi service at all, and leave it up to the end-user to provide their own cellular connection and be done with it.
I get that everyone thinks every Internet connection should be open and unfettered. The problem is that every connection just isn't robust enough to handle that kind of traffic.
I whole-heartedly agree that any connection that I pay for should be free from restrictions and treat all traffic equally. But using some kind of public Wi-Fi, which Amtrak's service would essentially be? It would be unusable if everyone onboard the train was trying to update GBs worth of apps.
I really don't even care about video throttling on cellular connections. It makes sense from a network management standpoint. As long as content isn't being blocked outright, the message can still get through. Unfortunately, if you read between the lines of the original Net Neutrality guidelines, the proposed rules did exactly the opposite . There was sneaky language in there about no blocking of lawful content. Lawful where? If one backwater jurisdiction in rural Alabama was to make porn illegal, does that then make it illegal for all providers to block PornHub?
We're already on a slippery slope with all the bandying about of the term "hate speech" here in the states, even though the First Amendment protects it, that doesn't mean local jurisdictions couldn't still pass feel-good (to their bases, obviously) legislation to ban certain things, and while it wouldn't hopefully pass muster with the higher courts, it might take a while before the laws get struck down, if ever in today's scary climate of people in black masks trying to attack freedom of speech and expression.
If San Francisco were to make conservative speech illegal, does that mean Verizon can block access to, say, Breitbart? If Texas were to ban communist speech, could AT&T then block access to Mother Jones? Leaving these loopholes in place opens the door to much wider content restrictions than we have now. I don't disagree that a provider you're paying needs to provide access to the ENTIRE internet, without regards to the content. If anything, the current proposed rules don't go far enough in my opinion, and when it comes to free speech and the open internet, there should be no half-measures. Freedom to access all, period. Someone somewhere can succeed in making something they don't like illegal, that doesn't mean that it actually is illegal, and that doesn't mean that anyone should have the right to block it.
If it's illegal today, there are already rules in place to remove that content from the internet, and any provider will gladly remove illegal material in a heartbeat. The end-user ISPs don't need to be able to wield that kind of power, and this would just codify that power. As it stands today, no provider is blocking access to any legal content, because they'll just lose subscribers if they do. The market is still working, we don't need another law unless it goes all the way in fully protecting the free and open internet.
And I never want to get it again!
No shit, if they don't want to give up customers private data, stop fucking logging it. Verizon, your plans are now unlimited. There is no longer any business need for domestic call logs (international calls are still subject to interception, as they always have been), data logs, or any other kind of logging of communications between two domestic parties. You can't give up the information you don't have. Lead by fucking example. Log nothing unless under the order of a signed warrant describing the party to be logged.
Of course, this will never happen, because Verizon is as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey (as is Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al.) as they have exactly zero desire for the gravy train of government money pouring into them to stop if they no longer have the sweet, sweet data they keep on all the citizens. Verizon is ostensibly just a "service provider" and should make their money providing service, not data mining for profit. If they really wanted to make a change, they could do it, today. Now, before anyone starts talking about how they'd be run out of business by the deep state if they did so, think about this: I'm positive that if there exists one large company that can't be blackmailed by the government, it's the fucking landline phone provider of Washington, DC!
The rest of the bottom-feeding companies would have to go out of business, of course, since tracking peoples every thought and idea is their sole profit center. No one forces you to use those other services though. But yes, I agree, they don't care one bit. Let's see big telecom lead us into the warrantless spying-free future! I won't be holding my breath.
But it's too late: I'll never forget, and I happily tell anyone who'll listen that Microsoft supports Hitler and genocide.
It's Microsoft. Those aren't the worst things I've ever heard about them.
So "Nazi Party Donor" and "Black Lifes Matter" are arguing with each other, and no one has yet realized that they have UIDs that are almost identical and are obviously satire accounts?
I get it, but this guy isn't that much younger than me. Maybe if it was a 15 year old kid or something...I know what a telegraph is even though I've never even seen a telegram let alone used the equipment!
I am an Apple fan. I am under no impression that most things they do are at all innovative. What they do, however, is implement things very well that are sometimes half-assed on other platforms.
The reason I really enjoy my Apple devices isn't because they do anything that I can't do on other platforms, it's because things work consistently the way I'd expect, every time. If I want to hack things or run random binaries and experiment around with unproven technologies, I'll do it on my PC.
When I need an appliance that operates as expected when I need it to, it's Apple all the way. I know that isn't what you want to hear, but it's the truth.
Or are people really stupid enough to not know about broadcast fucking TV?
an M.B.A student
Oh, nevermind.
No. I'm saying that 10Mbps is just fine for watching mobile video.
Wait...can, or should? Of course they shouldn't change data in transit based on any of those factors. They absolutely CAN. That technology is a decade old or more.
And I don't think a basic rate-limit is "changing data in transit", it just forces the client and server to negotiate a different acceptable rate of transfer. The data hasn't been altered between the two endpoints. Or are you just being stupidly disingenuous?
Sure I have. It's still not meant to be used as a primary home internet connection. There's a reason wireless is also called "mobile". It's designed to be used while you're on the go.
I actually use my tethering extensively, sometimes even *gasp* to binge-watch videos on Netflix on my laptop (usually at the airport or a hotel out in the sticks when I'm out of town on business), that's why I understand the situation so well! Those are situations where I just need some mindless entertainment but for fuck's sake I don't need 4K in those situations. But when I'm at home watching my 70" TV that can actually benefit from UHD video, I use my fixed-line wired internet connection. Why would I want to use a shitty cellular connection at home where I actually care about video quality?
And honestly, I usually use my T-Mobile $30 plan to tether, because most of my usage on the go IS video, which is zero-rated at 1.5Mbps so I can watch as much of it as I want without shitting up the network for everyone else.
Look, I'm as pro-net-neutrality as the next guy, but when you have people with the attention span of a gnat loading video after video in UHD on a shared wireless link just to lose interest after 20 seconds (after half the video has loaded), it probably makes a lot of sense from a network management standpoint to limit the videos to 10Mbps. T-Mobile limits most of their video to 1.5Mbps, but since they're the tech fanboy sweetheart no one bats an eye at that!
Note that I don't disagree with T-Mobile's approach, either. But ho-lee-fuck is Verizon getting a lot of shit for quietly limiting video to 7 times T-Mobile's video data rate. I'm sure that everyone can get along just fine only watching their mobile video in 1080p on their 5" screen. And before someone chimes in with "what about the rurrral users who can only get cellular data", then I guess a trade off to living in the country is you only get 1080p video from Netflix. Poor babies.
Sure, this could be a slippery slope to silencing dissenting speech on the internet. I get it. But until CNN, MSNBC (or Infowars or Breitbart) are being blackholed, I'll pass on this stupid battle. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Is what we call the "beginning of the end".
Every "front page of the Internet" we've ever had fails once they start overcomplicating things. Unfortunately they haven't yet reached the "death throes", but I've got popcorn ready for when they do.