Teachers today (apparently) want to be available to their students 24x7, for some unknown reason - it is amazing that education manages to occur without early--evening texts from the school reminding parents that tomorrow is "Taco Tuesday" and that "the big game with their cross-town rival is this Friday night."
Bulk SMS company's should pay.. they are the ones using it the most.
They are the only ones facing this fee. Remind uses Twillo, Twillo pumps 4.5 Billon text messages into Verizon, and it pays a fee for each message it sends. Remind uses Twillo to send out it's text messages, all 1.6 billion of them a year. Twillo represents a constant half-million texts/hour, Remind represents 183K of those messages each hour. Twillo, and it's major client Remind, ARE the heavy users of the system.
Twillo pumps a half-million text messages into the Verizon Network/hour - how do you propose Verizon ensure none of those half million texts are not spam?
Verizon is assessing it's big users a fee to fund anti-spam efforts.
Verizon and others need to stop trying to pretend that text messages cost them huge amounts of money.
Verizon isn't acting like texts cost them huge amounts of money - they are collecting money for anti-spam efforts, you know - AI-based tools, manual review of messages, etc.
Remind, through Twillo, already pays a per-message fee to Verizon (and every other carrier), this is separate from that expense.
If Android and IOS could just put down the hand grenades for one moment and agree on a common texting over internet protocol, then we wouldn't have to rely on SMS texting in the first place.
Remind, through Twillo, is already paying a small, per-text fee for their messages to be sent on Verizon. Verizon is assessing a separate fee to their major users to fund anti-spam measures, and at 4.5 Billion SMS messages/year on the Verizon network, Twillo is a major user of the system.
I love how Remind tried to convince Verizon not to lump in Remind's SMS messages to "free" users - why would Verizon do that? How is that in Verizon's best interest? Is Remind a non-profit charity or a for-profit business?
Will your daughter have email? That's a zero-cost option, as is encouraging your district to actually pay for the service, rather than rely on a free service?
The school can simply switch to the premium plan, and all the children will get their text messages, even on Verizon, because Remind will cover the fee for paying customers.
The issue is that the vast majority of Remind users are using the free service Remind offers.
They are charging Twillo a usage fee because they are a "heavy user" of the SMS services of Verizon, to the tune of 4.6 Billion message/year (that's over a half-million messages an hour, every hour of every day for a year). Twillo is (proportionally) passing that fee on to Remind, which generates 1.6 Billion messages/year (182K messages/hour, every hour of every day for a year).
Verizon isn't "charging" Remind anything, Remind chose to use a service that in-turn is choosing to pass on to it's customers (like Remind) a fee Verizon imposed on it.
The simple answer is for the people that value the service to pay for the premium service - Remind is absorbing the "anti-spam" fees for those customers... But then again, I suspect as is often the case when it comes to internet services - it's a vital resource for students, parent and teachers - but it's not worth actually paying for!
Who said it was spamming? Verizon is charging text-based services (like Twillo) a fee to fund anti-spam efforts.
Remind runs 1.6 billion texts/year through Twillo on the Verizon network, and as the source of over 4 billion text messages year, Verizon is charging Twillo a fee to help fund anti-spam measures.
Remind isn't being targeted, it is being asked by Twillo to pay it's share of the fee Verizon is charging it.
You are trying too hard - the connection method isn't an issue, it's the number of simultaneous streams. The example you give represents two simultaneous streams, a service Netflix offers in their "standard" subscription. If you attempted to watch two simultaneous streams under the basic subscription, you'd be flagged because you are only entitled to one stream, not two.
Netflix currently offers one, two, and five stream subscriptions.
Assuming your "family" can get by with five simultaneous streams, simply sign up for the premium plan and go on about your business. If you need more than 5 streams simultaneously, your family likely has greater issues than the subscription fee for Netflix.
If a family wants two simultaneous, then sign-up for the standard plan, which offers two streams. If the, y need up to five simultaneous streams, then sign up for the premium plan. You can use your streams anywhere you want.
You seriously didn't even bother to read the summary, did you?
When I signed up, It was for streaming to X amount of screens. There was no mention of "In a single geographical location". My family and I are all over the damn place- all the damn time, and we all have NF going with our own profiles during our downtime.
Dude, Netflix offers three tiers of service, a single stream, two simultaneous, and 5 simultaneous streams... there is no mention of "in a single geographic area" except when streaming SIMULTANEOUSLY in multiple locations and only having paid for a SINGLE STREAM - see the difference?
It's actually easier and more convenient than just torrenting my media.
Listen Netflix. This is your best feature. It's why I signed up. If you add hoops, captchas, and other DRMish garbage, I'm cancelling my service. I don't care if you call it an AI feature.
Netflix hasn't implemented this "feature" - it's a software offering a small company says a company like Netflix could use - re-read the summary.
I don't care that you wan't more money. This is the service you sold me. It will simply be easier to spend the same money on VPN service, and teach the fam how to torrent instead.
BS, the only thing a company like Netflix would use this software for would be to find people using more simultaneous streams then they paid for, they don't care where your streams are, they care about how many streams you use and how many you pay for.
Why would a subscriber paying for two streams be "flagged" for using two simultaneous streams?
The AI system developed by Synamedia uses machine learning to analyze account activity and recognize unusual patterns, such as account details being used in two locations within similar time periods.
The goal is to upsell single-stream subscribers and convince them to become multi-stream subscribers:
The idea is to spot instances of customers sharing their account credentials illegally and offering them a premium shared account service that will authorize a limited level of password sharing.
No, they want to capture and upsell users that use multiple simultaneous streams.
The AI system developed by Synamedia uses machine learning to analyze account activity and recognize unusual patterns, such as account details being used in two locations within similar time periods.
You personally pay so that you personally get faster access.
But when a corporation pays to give all it's customers faster access, it's wrong/a violation/a crime?
This is where most Americans eyes glaze over and ask "what's the difference?" The Armchair NN pundits boiled their argument down to "paying for faster service put others that couldn't pay for faster service at a disadvantage because by comparison their service is now slower - everyone should have equal access, so it's wrong."
How will blocking a charging station lead to death?
You'd have to, for example, only own a tesla, not own a home charging station, only have access to the one (now blocked) charging station, and have a medical emergency when you have an inadequate charge to get you to the hospital... AND you live in an area not served by an ambulance service.
Slashdot Mirror
Teachers today (apparently) want to be available to their students 24x7, for some unknown reason - it is amazing that education manages to occur without early--evening texts from the school reminding parents that tomorrow is "Taco Tuesday" and that "the big game with their cross-town rival is this Friday night."
Bulk SMS company's should pay.. they are the ones using it the most.
They are the only ones facing this fee. Remind uses Twillo, Twillo pumps 4.5 Billon text messages into Verizon, and it pays a fee for each message it sends. Remind uses Twillo to send out it's text messages, all 1.6 billion of them a year. Twillo represents a constant half-million texts/hour, Remind represents 183K of those messages each hour. Twillo, and it's major client Remind, ARE the heavy users of the system.
Twillo pumps a half-million text messages into the Verizon Network/hour - how do you propose Verizon ensure none of those half million texts are not spam?
Verizon is assessing it's big users a fee to fund anti-spam efforts.
Verizon and others need to stop trying to pretend that text messages cost them huge amounts of money.
Verizon isn't acting like texts cost them huge amounts of money - they are collecting money for anti-spam efforts, you know - AI-based tools, manual review of messages, etc.
Remind, through Twillo, already pays a per-message fee to Verizon (and every other carrier), this is separate from that expense.
If Android and IOS could just put down the hand grenades for one moment and agree on a common texting over internet protocol, then we wouldn't have to rely on SMS texting in the first place.
Like email?
Remind, through Twillo, is already paying a small, per-text fee for their messages to be sent on Verizon. Verizon is assessing a separate fee to their major users to fund anti-spam measures, and at 4.5 Billion SMS messages/year on the Verizon network, Twillo is a major user of the system.
I love how Remind tried to convince Verizon not to lump in Remind's SMS messages to "free" users - why would Verizon do that? How is that in Verizon's best interest? Is Remind a non-profit charity or a for-profit business?
Will your daughter have email? That's a zero-cost option, as is encouraging your district to actually pay for the service, rather than rely on a free service?
Or use one of the other 3 major phone companies and dozens of resellers that still offer the service for free.
...until they charge a similar fee.
Seriously, why can't the school simply pay for this service if it really is so valuable?
The school can simply switch to the premium plan, and all the children will get their text messages, even on Verizon, because Remind will cover the fee for paying customers.
The issue is that the vast majority of Remind users are using the free service Remind offers.
They are charging Twillo a usage fee because they are a "heavy user" of the SMS services of Verizon, to the tune of 4.6 Billion message/year (that's over a half-million messages an hour, every hour of every day for a year). Twillo is (proportionally) passing that fee on to Remind, which generates 1.6 Billion messages/year (182K messages/hour, every hour of every day for a year).
Verizon isn't "charging" Remind anything, Remind chose to use a service that in-turn is choosing to pass on to it's customers (like Remind) a fee Verizon imposed on it.
The simple answer is for the people that value the service to pay for the premium service - Remind is absorbing the "anti-spam" fees for those customers... But then again, I suspect as is often the case when it comes to internet services - it's a vital resource for students, parent and teachers - but it's not worth actually paying for!
Who said it was spamming? Verizon is charging text-based services (like Twillo) a fee to fund anti-spam efforts.
Remind runs 1.6 billion texts/year through Twillo on the Verizon network, and as the source of over 4 billion text messages year, Verizon is charging Twillo a fee to help fund anti-spam measures.
Remind isn't being targeted, it is being asked by Twillo to pay it's share of the fee Verizon is charging it.
Paying a fee to fight spam doesn't mean you are a spammer, just as paying a 9/11 anti-terrorism fee when you buy an airline ticket doesn't make you a terrorist.
news blog Boing Boing
Seriously?
As long as you only use the number of streams you paid for, there's no problem.
You are trying too hard - the connection method isn't an issue, it's the number of simultaneous streams. The example you give represents two simultaneous streams, a service Netflix offers in their "standard" subscription. If you attempted to watch two simultaneous streams under the basic subscription, you'd be flagged because you are only entitled to one stream, not two.
Netflix currently offers one, two, and five stream subscriptions.
Assuming your "family" can get by with five simultaneous streams, simply sign up for the premium plan and go on about your business. If you need more than 5 streams simultaneously, your family likely has greater issues than the subscription fee for Netflix.
If a family wants two simultaneous, then sign-up for the standard plan, which offers two streams. If the, y need up to five simultaneous streams, then sign up for the premium plan. You can use your streams anywhere you want.
You seriously didn't even bother to read the summary, did you?
When I signed up, It was for streaming to X amount of screens. There was no mention of "In a single geographical location". My family and I are all over the damn place- all the damn time, and we all have NF going with our own profiles during our downtime.
Dude, Netflix offers three tiers of service, a single stream, two simultaneous, and 5 simultaneous streams... there is no mention of "in a single geographic area" except when streaming SIMULTANEOUSLY in multiple locations and only having paid for a SINGLE STREAM - see the difference?
It's actually easier and more convenient than just torrenting my media.
Listen Netflix. This is your best feature. It's why I signed up. If you add hoops, captchas, and other DRMish garbage, I'm cancelling my service. I don't care if you call it an AI feature.
Netflix hasn't implemented this "feature" - it's a software offering a small company says a company like Netflix could use - re-read the summary.
I don't care that you wan't more money. This is the service you sold me. It will simply be easier to spend the same money on VPN service, and teach the fam how to torrent instead.
BS, the only thing a company like Netflix would use this software for would be to find people using more simultaneous streams then they paid for, they don't care where your streams are, they care about how many streams you use and how many you pay for.
You don't understand. Their issue is users with multiple simultaneous streams that have only paid for a singe stream.
Why would a subscriber paying for two streams be "flagged" for using two simultaneous streams?
The AI system developed by Synamedia uses machine learning to analyze account activity and recognize unusual patterns, such as account details being used in two locations within similar time periods.
The goal is to upsell single-stream subscribers and convince them to become multi-stream subscribers:
The idea is to spot instances of customers sharing their account credentials illegally and offering them a premium shared account service that will authorize a limited level of password sharing.
No, they want to capture and upsell users that use multiple simultaneous streams.
The AI system developed by Synamedia uses machine learning to analyze account activity and recognize unusual patterns, such as account details being used in two locations within similar time periods.
So now rising cable & satellite TV bills are "News for nerds, Stuff that matters"?
What's next - rising gas prices?
So your mother is running a 10 year-old browser on a 10 year-old Linux kernel, on a 10 year-old PC?
You personally pay so that you personally get faster access.
But when a corporation pays to give all it's customers faster access, it's wrong/a violation/a crime?
This is where most Americans eyes glaze over and ask "what's the difference?" The Armchair NN pundits boiled their argument down to "paying for faster service put others that couldn't pay for faster service at a disadvantage because by comparison their service is now slower - everyone should have equal access, so it's wrong."
How will blocking a charging station lead to death?
You'd have to, for example, only own a tesla, not own a home charging station, only have access to the one (now blocked) charging station, and have a medical emergency when you have an inadequate charge to get you to the hospital... AND you live in an area not served by an ambulance service.
Yeah, that's a certainty.
In what is quickly becoming a problem for some Tesla drivers
It's happened TWICE - that's the same number of times Hillary lost her bid for President...
Let's not over-react.