Luckily I still have an unlimited plan through AT&T but the contracts are over, so I imagine I'll be shopping come 2017.
I lost my AT&T unlimited plan (because reasons; AT&T was just dicking me around) and had to suck it up on their 4GB plan while my wife got to keep her unlimited. Whatever, I wasn't a heavy data user at the time, but unlimited would have been nice just in case. It was a completely unrelated set of circumstances that lead us to switch to T-Mobile, but we haven't looked back since. The only place I've been without coverage is in Randle, WA, where the only viable carrier is US Cellular; I hear they now have a roaming agreement with T-Mo, so that should work there as well, at least for phones that support band 12. My wife lost signal in a few places between CA and WA, but I chalk that up to the iPhone 6 Plus she was using at the time not supporting band 12.
I know you have an ideological stance against Binge-On, but I hope you'll give them a serious look if you do leave AT their service really is top-notch now. The only caveat is that anything new they do will be a shit show for exactly 90 days. Without fail. I've subscribed to literally every new thing they've put out on the past 3 years and I had either service, support, or billing issues with each and every one of them in the first 90 days, all resolved on or around day 91.
To your point, though, I've got ten bucks on someone trying to get their own personal server zero-rated. If I had the time I'd do it myself. "I need to keep an eye on my cat while I'm at work!" Heh.
I might do it for kicks, to see if they'll allow it. I did it for Music Freedom back when I was on the 2GB plan, after reading about someone else having done so; I was surprised when what I read actually turned out to be true.
I don't know what was up with the lameness filter, I've written much longer posts, with many more quotes. Sorry about breaking it up like this.
Still hitting the lameness filter... WTF? Looks like it's getting split into 3 or more replies...
Another issue I see is that, in order to eliminate the "service providers having to register with T-Mobile" issue, clicking the button would have to add every host (by IP address, since not every host will reverse to the site's domain name) to the user's list; there would need to be some mechanism by which to keep that list up to date as new hosts are added and old hosts are removed. This also becomes problematic for sites using 3rd-party CDNs, as they'll have no idea which hosts to list; additionally, listing such a CDN would affect all sites which use it, not just the site being added.
One solution for the first part of this issue is to require sites to register so they can maintain a list of hosts; this would still require manual intervention on T-Mobile's side, at least to audit to ensure that competing sites don't use the list to screw each other; think one download site adding another download site's hosts to its hosts list, rather than its own, so users adding site A to their list still get fast downloads from sit A, but site B slows down immensely. The only solution I can come up with for the CDN problem is for T-Mo to do deep packet inspection, rather than just looking at headers, to detect the HTTP Referrer header so they can apply the throttle and zero-rate to any content included on a given site's pages; this, however, only works for HTTP and would cause a huge outcry over the T-Mobile "looking at all of our traffic"; it also wouldn't work for HTTPS at all.
Now, as for why I'm writing this wall of text to pick apart your idea: you've presented me with a puzzle of sorts, one which I can't seem to solve. The question, then, is "does a solution exist?" and, perhaps, this is something we can sort out together.
I wish the cell carriers would offer an unlimited but slow pipe. I'd happily pay a fair amount for a 3 megabit un-metered connection.
Agreed with regard to the offering. I wouldn't user it, personally, but I'm sure my wife would, so my bill would still drop a bit. I do still think Binge-On is just a test of the waters for increasing the "over limit" speed from 128Kbps to 1.5Mbps. I don't think 3Mbps will happen, but we'll likely see 1.5 in the next year or two.
You're getting 2 replies from me because the number of quote blocks has triggered the "Lameness filter". Fucking Slashdot...
By 'customer' do you mean T-Mobile is the customer or that the video service is? My understanding is that the service provider has to be the one to make the request to T-Mobile...?
Both, actually. Binge-On can be turned off and on on a line-by-line basis with a simple shortcode.
Either way, my stance on this is that if a service provider has to jump through extra hoops to get to one ISP's customers then boom we're back into not-neutrality.
And I fully agree with this. However, no service provider has to jump through any hoops to get to any T-Mobile user. Some services might work less than optimally (yes, I'm understating this) for users with Binge-On enabled, but that's at the user's choice and they can turn Binge-On off if it's a bother. This is very much unlike what Comcast and Verizon did with Netflix, where the end user didn't have a say in the matter. I would fully agree that this applied to Binge-On if it was not user-controllable; I also do agree that they, perhaps, option 4 should be the default and option 1 shouldn't exist, but I do understand that they implemented it the way they did in order to get more video providers on-board early on. It does seem a bit punitive, though. Likewise, it should be opt-in for the end user, another change I think they should make. All-in-all, though, the basic underpinnings of the idea are sound, IMO.
If the customer, the person with the smartphone can request that a particular site be zero rated, and it doesn't matter what site that is, I am fine with that
This comes back to "where does Netflix actually stream from?"
You did offer a solution to that, an "Add to Binge-On" button, which I didn't address at the time, so I'll go ahead and do that now. First of all, I like that you're thinking like this, please don't take my dismantling of this idea personally; do what it seems you're good at doing, take my analysis, and improve on the idea. Who knows, maybe by the end of this we'll have a workable solution T-Mobile can implement.
The first issue I see is that it requires each site to implement the button. Additionally, the button would require access to the user's T-Mobile account in order to set the configuration for the site; I think this one's going to be a dealbreaker, as it means potentially giving the kids the keys to the kingdom, on to of the high potential for security issues. In order to work on a line-by-line basis, as Binge-On currently does, it would mean every line would have to have its own login, as well. I can think of a few solutions for this, but I'm not sure how workable any of them would actually be in practice; one of those is a phone#+PIN "login" that only allows access to the Binge-On list.
A simple "zoom" button next to the trackball fixes that. Touch the button while you roll the ball, same motion but more accurate. I use a Logitech M570 an have one of the "extra" buttons programmed this way.
Even better, a Pixel with something like 1TB (or more) of local storage and Ubuntu preinstalled alongside Chrome OS; preferably via Crouton so you don't even have to reboot to get at it.
You do realize that the Nexus line is built to Google specs and runs firmware directly from Google, right? Sure, they yank the removable battery and SD slot from those phones, but you sure can turn off the Google services. In fact, you can easily unlock the bootloader (it's a checkbox in the developer tools menu) and flash your own firmware, if you wish.
I've had phones with removable batteries before, and I used to actually think they were more convenient than USB battery packs. Back then, my phone was the only USB-charged device I owned, so I was probably right. They're definitely more efficient, as every bit of power they store goes to the phone; but, if you own more than one power-hungry USB-charged device, a USB battery pack is immensely more convenient as you can charge just one battery, which you can then use to charge all such devices.
When I got my first Android phone, a Motorola Atrix, I wished there was a battery charging cradle available for it; after all, it didn't quite match the battery life of my BlackBerry Bold (or the Curve I had before that, for that matter) and I used a spare battery for that. I did buy a spare, but it was a pain in the ass to juggle batteries in the phone for charging, so the spare battery ended up getting lost in a drawer and I bought a USB battery pack.
When I upgraded to the HTC One X, I had several other USB-charged devices, a few of which did not have removable batteries (bluetooth headsets and such), so I already had a couple USB battery packs. I thought I'd miss the removable battery as an option (even though I hadn't used it in the Atrix). I was wrong, the USB packs were great for the rare occasion that I might be away from power long enough to need one. Mind you, I plan my charging habits around my day, so I plug the phone in to fully charge before I'm going to be gone for an extended period.
This carried to the HTC One, which also had no removable battery. Then, I got an LG G3, with which T-Mobile included a spare battery and a cradle. I was excited, I had a viable (e.g. externally charged) spare battery again! And I used the USB battery packs... I always had one, to charge my other devices, so the battery itself was just another item to carry, which I never carried, just as spare batteries for the plethora of USB-charged devices I carry on a regular basis would have been. At the end of the day, a removable battery isn't as convenient as it seems on the surface.
Sure, there are fringe cases where it can be. If you're packing light, you can fit 3 or 4 of them in the space of one decent USB battery pack, which is fine if you only have one device that might need a battery; the moment you have more than that, the USB pack wins. If you actually let your phone's battery die completely, it's quicker to swap in a new one than to wait for it to charge enough to turn on; if you plan your charging habits around your day, though, you can top off that battery long before it reaches a critical charge level, rendering that a non-issue.
As for the SD slot, this is one thing I was absolutely positive I was going to miss on the Nexus 6, which I got because I wanted to try a plain vanilla Android experience. I didn't miss it one bit, in large part to my no longer carrying tens of gigs of music with me, having replaced that with Rhapsody (free through T-Mobile, though I do pay $6.99/mo to get all the features, including downloading favorite tracks so I'm not stuck without music when in airplane mode). Now, I'm not everyone, and some people might record a lot more video or take a lot more photos than I do; an argument I made for the iPhone having an SD slot at least on the 128GB models, because you're likely in an area with little or no coverage if you're also in an area where you can't find a computer to dump that content onto; but we're talking about Android here, there are options, if you need the SD slot, you buy a phone that has one.
Ah! Another like myself, not afraid to admit when wrong. I reserve the insults for those who let their ego cloud their argument.
I understand about not having seen the re-compression detail before; it's not an easy bit to find (though it's inferred, to a degree, in the "Technical Requirements" PDF, with the slightly different wording "where possible" between options 1 and 2), which is why I try to drop that detail into these arguments whenever I see them. I honestly don't recall where I found it (or I'd have provided a reference for it early on); if you could post that link for me, it would be greatly appreciated.
I disagree that it violates net neutrality, as it is being done only at the customer's request. The mandate only specifies that the ISP must provide a "lane" where all traffic is treated equally, it does not preclude them honoring customer-initiated or customer-specified QoS (or similar) rules, which is what I consider this to be. The FCC apparently agrees with that stance, as Wheeler himself applauded T-Mobile for doing it. In that vein, I wish ISPs in general would honor customer-specified QoS flags; relative only to the customer's other traffic, of course. Sadly, I think ISPs will try to claim that NN prevents this, but that's a load of crap IMO.
Either way, the end result of Binge-On is that the user gets more video for the same price. It's one of the most consumer-friendly things I've seen a wireless carrier do and I'm sure it undercuts their data sales by a fair bit. Could it be more consumer-friendly? Sure, everything could. But hey, it's a start!
In all honesty, I really am waiting for them to deny an application, the ensuing media shitstorm will be one of epic proportions. I don't think they're gonna, though; I think this is really just a trial to see if their network can handle dripping to 1.5Mbps rather than 128Kbps (though I got 320Kbps regularly when I went over 2GB when I was on that plan) when LTE allotments run out. Only time will tell, but I view the "The Binge On offering may be discontinued at any time" at the bottom of the "Technical Requirements" PDF as a canary to that effect.
As far as the debate is concerned, I'll let your word stand, because I did say I would do that. I just want to throw this out there, though: I'm on an unlimited LTE plan so I really don't have a dog in this race; "free shit!" doesn't come into my argument, as I can stream all I want at full-bandwidth to begin with. I do have an answer to the question "why is the application process human-based" if that's really your only sticking point; again, I ceded the last word to you, I'm more than happy to provide that answer, though, if you care to insist.
If you happen to feel that I've usurped your last word on the matter, feel free to post again, with the understanding that I will reply to correct any false assumptions you've made about me.
I'm bailing now because you're all over the place. You want the last word, go ahead and post; I'm done with you. Your arguments are inconsistent and barely coherent...
Again, you are in such a hurry to find something to be critical of you're cannibalizing your own point. A "set this up for me" button is automation. A form to fill out and email to T-Mobile is not.
I'm sorry, this is amusing. It's almost like you ignored the quote immediately following the one you claim rebuts my argument:
There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply. Every time you guys talk about this you hand-wave away the application process as "oh it's just a technical thing, they never turn services down!" So if this process is so simple that they just have to meet technical criteria, why have an application process involved at all?
Further, I never attempted to bail on the discussion; you'll note that my point about you not providing the "list" you supposedly came up with (which you refer to as me attempting to bail) is, in fact, followed by yet another point furthering the discussion. Were I bailing, I'd have said the first part and left it at that.
Meh... actually go through the process, then talk to me about its ins and outs. It's a very similar process to the one they've used for Music Freedom for years; and that's a process I've actually been through. We can argue all day about this but the fact remains that I am, and will be, much more familiar with the subject than you.
You're ready to pound your fists on the keyboard because I didn't rattle off a quick list of ideas that you were just going to find frivolous reasons to shoot down?
No fist-pounding here, and certainly not because you wouldn't rattle off a nonexistent list of ideas. That you think I would find them frivolous speaks volumes about the supposed ideas on that list; either they exist and even you find them frivolous, or they do not exist and you know all you can come up with will fit your projected description.
The important point is that there are plenty of ways to do it, it has to be done anyway to even apply to Binge On.
So you never claimed there was no reason for Binge-On to have an application process and that it should be able to be fully automated?
why have a human-required application process at all?
There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply. Every time you guys talk about this you hand-wave away the application process as "oh it's just a technical thing, they never turn services down!" So if this process is so simple that they just have to meet technical criteria, why have an application process involved at all?
Show me an automated approval section
Well, there's 3 from this thread alone. I'm sure if I looked harder I'd find more. People don't change or drop strong arguments, yet you've changed your argument several times and eventually dropped the argument that no application process is needed.
I know you need to pin something on me to get your easy 'face-saving' way out, but that's just off-topic.
First of all, what was off-topic? Second, go review my posting history and say that again. Given the above, who's trying to save face? Your problem is that you forget that the conversation above each of your comments serves as a text record of what you said before it, and that anyone reading that far will have already read that record.
So Europe and the US are the only places that exist in the world?
Hint: there are a great number of 3rd world countries with payment card systems; they typically run whatever other countries happen to throw away; they won't be using chips anytime soon.
Anyone sophisticated enough to do the live remote attack can fake a magnetic stripe in real time too, so it buys you _nothing_
Considering that the stripe would be read as the card got pulled into the machine, before the chip met the internal contacts, they'd have to do better than real time.
That's why you always point out your hidden cameras when you come back to collect them. If they already know, you just saved your ass from getting busted. Worst case, they want to keep the camera or maybe turn it over to police; but, then, you should be using a wireless camera transmitting to a nearby (but not on the same property) storage device and ditching it after each op, anyway; if you can't afford that, get a job, running scams ain't for you.
As for the problem with whitelisting all the appropriate places, that's such a frivolous issue that I came up with 3 different solutions while walking out to my mailbox.
Somehow I doubt it. You seem the type who would either make shit up or provide the details, and I see no details.
Speaking of details, you keep getting so many details of how Binge-On actually works flat out wrong despite being constantly corrected that there's not point in anyone continuing to discuss it with you until you can demonstrate that you actually know what the hell you're talking about. I don't want to accuse you of trolling, because I see you post around here a lot and I can't say I've seen that from you before, but the only other options are willful ignorance or idiocy.
Trust that I've read all comments on this page, including both of the threads you've referenced. You'll likely note that I replied to comments in the other thread, as well, specifically pointing out why T-Mobile must have an application process for Binge-On. Letting the customers come up with their own "slow list" doesn't get around the copyright issues with re-compressing video streams (I don't agree with it, but it's modification under current laws), nor does it help with encrypted or otherwise undetectable streams.
Also, do you really think your typical user is going to know which hosts Netflix streams video from? Here's a hint, it's not netflix.com. Adding netflix.com to a user-defined list won't have the desired effect and will simply cause a shitload of headaches for all involved when customers complain of being billed for Netflix streaming despite having added netflix.com to their list. The reason Netflix streams can't simply be detected is that Netflix streams over HTTPS, so T-Mobile can't tell what the data is, only the source IP (which may or may not reverse to the domain the user added to their list), which is why T-Mobile has an application process that involves providers who use encrypted or stateless protocols providing a list of hosts from which their content is streamed.
I'm not sure what you think is consumer-friendly about a service that not only won't work as expected due to technical limitations, but will also get the provider sued to hell and back, increasing prices and ending the service that got them sued in the first place.
Last time I checked the price of cable and data services has never gone down, ever.
I used to pay $100/mo for a 1Mbps connection. I now pay $150/mo for a 75Mbps connection. Yes, $150 is more than $100, but it's less than the $7500 you'd expect if the $100-per-1Mbps pricing hadn't gone down.
More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid! T-mobile has neither the manpower nor the time to handle it manually for everyone like that
Let's see... if it takes 15 minutes (and that's being pessimistic) to review and approve an application for a site that already meets the requirements, an employee working an 8 hour shift can approve 32 per day, on average. Let's say there are 10,000 providers wishing to participate and 8,000 of them meet the technical requirements and get the 15min approval, it would take one lone employee 250 days to process all of those applications. A team of 10? Under a month. Of the remaining 2,000 sites, assume half need to provide a lit of hosts, or a netblock from which they'll be serving video, because their streams are served over a UDP-based protocol or HTTPS, this adds, say, another 15 minutes to the process, so it'll take a team of 10 a total of 2 months to process those 1,000 sites. That leaves the remaining 1,000 sites for the team of to to occupy themselves with for the rest of their employment with T-Mobile.
If you think 3 months is a long time to process 9,000 sites, consider than they've had barely 90 applications in 7 months. At that rate, I think they'll be able to keep up; though, it'll take another 65 years for the rest of the applications to come in.
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily I still have an unlimited plan through AT&T but the contracts are over, so I imagine I'll be shopping come 2017.
I lost my AT&T unlimited plan (because reasons; AT&T was just dicking me around) and had to suck it up on their 4GB plan while my wife got to keep her unlimited. Whatever, I wasn't a heavy data user at the time, but unlimited would have been nice just in case. It was a completely unrelated set of circumstances that lead us to switch to T-Mobile, but we haven't looked back since. The only place I've been without coverage is in Randle, WA, where the only viable carrier is US Cellular; I hear they now have a roaming agreement with T-Mo, so that should work there as well, at least for phones that support band 12. My wife lost signal in a few places between CA and WA, but I chalk that up to the iPhone 6 Plus she was using at the time not supporting band 12.
I know you have an ideological stance against Binge-On, but I hope you'll give them a serious look if you do leave AT their service really is top-notch now. The only caveat is that anything new they do will be a shit show for exactly 90 days. Without fail. I've subscribed to literally every new thing they've put out on the past 3 years and I had either service, support, or billing issues with each and every one of them in the first 90 days, all resolved on or around day 91.
To your point, though, I've got ten bucks on someone trying to get their own personal server zero-rated. If I had the time I'd do it myself. "I need to keep an eye on my cat while I'm at work!" Heh.
I might do it for kicks, to see if they'll allow it. I did it for Music Freedom back when I was on the 2GB plan, after reading about someone else having done so; I was surprised when what I read actually turned out to be true.
I don't know what was up with the lameness filter, I've written much longer posts, with many more quotes. Sorry about breaking it up like this.
Another issue I see is that, in order to eliminate the "service providers having to register with T-Mobile" issue, clicking the button would have to add every host (by IP address, since not every host will reverse to the site's domain name) to the user's list; there would need to be some mechanism by which to keep that list up to date as new hosts are added and old hosts are removed. This also becomes problematic for sites using 3rd-party CDNs, as they'll have no idea which hosts to list; additionally, listing such a CDN would affect all sites which use it, not just the site being added.
One solution for the first part of this issue is to require sites to register so they can maintain a list of hosts; this would still require manual intervention on T-Mobile's side, at least to audit to ensure that competing sites don't use the list to screw each other; think one download site adding another download site's hosts to its hosts list, rather than its own, so users adding site A to their list still get fast downloads from sit A, but site B slows down immensely. The only solution I can come up with for the CDN problem is for T-Mo to do deep packet inspection, rather than just looking at headers, to detect the HTTP Referrer header so they can apply the throttle and zero-rate to any content included on a given site's pages; this, however, only works for HTTP and would cause a huge outcry over the T-Mobile "looking at all of our traffic"; it also wouldn't work for HTTPS at all.
Now, as for why I'm writing this wall of text to pick apart your idea: you've presented me with a puzzle of sorts, one which I can't seem to solve. The question, then, is "does a solution exist?" and, perhaps, this is something we can sort out together.
I wish the cell carriers would offer an unlimited but slow pipe. I'd happily pay a fair amount for a 3 megabit un-metered connection.
Agreed with regard to the offering. I wouldn't user it, personally, but I'm sure my wife would, so my bill would still drop a bit. I do still think Binge-On is just a test of the waters for increasing the "over limit" speed from 128Kbps to 1.5Mbps. I don't think 3Mbps will happen, but we'll likely see 1.5 in the next year or two.
By 'customer' do you mean T-Mobile is the customer or that the video service is? My understanding is that the service provider has to be the one to make the request to T-Mobile...?
Both, actually. Binge-On can be turned off and on on a line-by-line basis with a simple shortcode.
Either way, my stance on this is that if a service provider has to jump through extra hoops to get to one ISP's customers then boom we're back into not-neutrality.
And I fully agree with this. However, no service provider has to jump through any hoops to get to any T-Mobile user. Some services might work less than optimally (yes, I'm understating this) for users with Binge-On enabled, but that's at the user's choice and they can turn Binge-On off if it's a bother. This is very much unlike what Comcast and Verizon did with Netflix, where the end user didn't have a say in the matter. I would fully agree that this applied to Binge-On if it was not user-controllable; I also do agree that they, perhaps, option 4 should be the default and option 1 shouldn't exist, but I do understand that they implemented it the way they did in order to get more video providers on-board early on. It does seem a bit punitive, though. Likewise, it should be opt-in for the end user, another change I think they should make. All-in-all, though, the basic underpinnings of the idea are sound, IMO.
If the customer, the person with the smartphone can request that a particular site be zero rated, and it doesn't matter what site that is, I am fine with that
This comes back to "where does Netflix actually stream from?"
You did offer a solution to that, an "Add to Binge-On" button, which I didn't address at the time, so I'll go ahead and do that now. First of all, I like that you're thinking like this, please don't take my dismantling of this idea personally; do what it seems you're good at doing, take my analysis, and improve on the idea. Who knows, maybe by the end of this we'll have a workable solution T-Mobile can implement.
The first issue I see is that it requires each site to implement the button. Additionally, the button would require access to the user's T-Mobile account in order to set the configuration for the site; I think this one's going to be a dealbreaker, as it means potentially giving the kids the keys to the kingdom, on to of the high potential for security issues. In order to work on a line-by-line basis, as Binge-On currently does, it would mean every line would have to have its own login, as well. I can think of a few solutions for this, but I'm not sure how workable any of them would actually be in practice; one of those is a phone#+PIN "login" that only allows access to the Binge-On list.
A simple "zoom" button next to the trackball fixes that. Touch the button while you roll the ball, same motion but more accurate. I use a Logitech M570 an have one of the "extra" buttons programmed this way.
Even better, a Pixel with something like 1TB (or more) of local storage and Ubuntu preinstalled alongside Chrome OS; preferably via Crouton so you don't even have to reboot to get at it.
You do realize that the Nexus line is built to Google specs and runs firmware directly from Google, right? Sure, they yank the removable battery and SD slot from those phones, but you sure can turn off the Google services. In fact, you can easily unlock the bootloader (it's a checkbox in the developer tools menu) and flash your own firmware, if you wish.
I've had phones with removable batteries before, and I used to actually think they were more convenient than USB battery packs. Back then, my phone was the only USB-charged device I owned, so I was probably right. They're definitely more efficient, as every bit of power they store goes to the phone; but, if you own more than one power-hungry USB-charged device, a USB battery pack is immensely more convenient as you can charge just one battery, which you can then use to charge all such devices.
When I got my first Android phone, a Motorola Atrix, I wished there was a battery charging cradle available for it; after all, it didn't quite match the battery life of my BlackBerry Bold (or the Curve I had before that, for that matter) and I used a spare battery for that. I did buy a spare, but it was a pain in the ass to juggle batteries in the phone for charging, so the spare battery ended up getting lost in a drawer and I bought a USB battery pack.
When I upgraded to the HTC One X, I had several other USB-charged devices, a few of which did not have removable batteries (bluetooth headsets and such), so I already had a couple USB battery packs. I thought I'd miss the removable battery as an option (even though I hadn't used it in the Atrix). I was wrong, the USB packs were great for the rare occasion that I might be away from power long enough to need one. Mind you, I plan my charging habits around my day, so I plug the phone in to fully charge before I'm going to be gone for an extended period.
This carried to the HTC One, which also had no removable battery. Then, I got an LG G3, with which T-Mobile included a spare battery and a cradle. I was excited, I had a viable (e.g. externally charged) spare battery again! And I used the USB battery packs... I always had one, to charge my other devices, so the battery itself was just another item to carry, which I never carried, just as spare batteries for the plethora of USB-charged devices I carry on a regular basis would have been. At the end of the day, a removable battery isn't as convenient as it seems on the surface.
Sure, there are fringe cases where it can be. If you're packing light, you can fit 3 or 4 of them in the space of one decent USB battery pack, which is fine if you only have one device that might need a battery; the moment you have more than that, the USB pack wins. If you actually let your phone's battery die completely, it's quicker to swap in a new one than to wait for it to charge enough to turn on; if you plan your charging habits around your day, though, you can top off that battery long before it reaches a critical charge level, rendering that a non-issue.
As for the SD slot, this is one thing I was absolutely positive I was going to miss on the Nexus 6, which I got because I wanted to try a plain vanilla Android experience. I didn't miss it one bit, in large part to my no longer carrying tens of gigs of music with me, having replaced that with Rhapsody (free through T-Mobile, though I do pay $6.99/mo to get all the features, including downloading favorite tracks so I'm not stuck without music when in airplane mode). Now, I'm not everyone, and some people might record a lot more video or take a lot more photos than I do; an argument I made for the iPhone having an SD slot at least on the 128GB models, because you're likely in an area with little or no coverage if you're also in an area where you can't find a computer to dump that content onto; but we're talking about Android here, there are options, if you need the SD slot, you buy a phone that has one.
When I upgraded to the Galaxy S7 Edge, I
Google Maps? Type in the address: done.
Or, to put it another way, if you ACs can be facetious, so can we registered users; most of whom are likely map-reading Americans.
Ah! Another like myself, not afraid to admit when wrong. I reserve the insults for those who let their ego cloud their argument.
I understand about not having seen the re-compression detail before; it's not an easy bit to find (though it's inferred, to a degree, in the "Technical Requirements" PDF, with the slightly different wording "where possible" between options 1 and 2), which is why I try to drop that detail into these arguments whenever I see them. I honestly don't recall where I found it (or I'd have provided a reference for it early on); if you could post that link for me, it would be greatly appreciated.
I disagree that it violates net neutrality, as it is being done only at the customer's request. The mandate only specifies that the ISP must provide a "lane" where all traffic is treated equally, it does not preclude them honoring customer-initiated or customer-specified QoS (or similar) rules, which is what I consider this to be. The FCC apparently agrees with that stance, as Wheeler himself applauded T-Mobile for doing it. In that vein, I wish ISPs in general would honor customer-specified QoS flags; relative only to the customer's other traffic, of course. Sadly, I think ISPs will try to claim that NN prevents this, but that's a load of crap IMO.
Either way, the end result of Binge-On is that the user gets more video for the same price. It's one of the most consumer-friendly things I've seen a wireless carrier do and I'm sure it undercuts their data sales by a fair bit. Could it be more consumer-friendly? Sure, everything could. But hey, it's a start!
In all honesty, I really am waiting for them to deny an application, the ensuing media shitstorm will be one of epic proportions. I don't think they're gonna, though; I think this is really just a trial to see if their network can handle dripping to 1.5Mbps rather than 128Kbps (though I got 320Kbps regularly when I went over 2GB when I was on that plan) when LTE allotments run out. Only time will tell, but I view the "The Binge On offering may be discontinued at any time" at the bottom of the "Technical Requirements" PDF as a canary to that effect.
As far as the debate is concerned, I'll let your word stand, because I did say I would do that. I just want to throw this out there, though: I'm on an unlimited LTE plan so I really don't have a dog in this race; "free shit!" doesn't come into my argument, as I can stream all I want at full-bandwidth to begin with. I do have an answer to the question "why is the application process human-based" if that's really your only sticking point; again, I ceded the last word to you, I'm more than happy to provide that answer, though, if you care to insist.
If you happen to feel that I've usurped your last word on the matter, feel free to post again, with the understanding that I will reply to correct any false assumptions you've made about me.
I'm bailing now because you're all over the place. You want the last word, go ahead and post; I'm done with you. Your arguments are inconsistent and barely coherent...
Again, you are in such a hurry to find something to be critical of you're cannibalizing your own point. A "set this up for me" button is automation. A form to fill out and email to T-Mobile is not.
I'm sorry, this is amusing. It's almost like you ignored the quote immediately following the one you claim rebuts my argument:
There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply. Every time you guys talk about this you hand-wave away the application process as "oh it's just a technical thing, they never turn services down!" So if this process is so simple that they just have to meet technical criteria, why have an application process involved at all?
Further, I never attempted to bail on the discussion; you'll note that my point about you not providing the "list" you supposedly came up with (which you refer to as me attempting to bail) is, in fact, followed by yet another point furthering the discussion. Were I bailing, I'd have said the first part and left it at that.
Meh... actually go through the process, then talk to me about its ins and outs. It's a very similar process to the one they've used for Music Freedom for years; and that's a process I've actually been through. We can argue all day about this but the fact remains that I am, and will be, much more familiar with the subject than you.
You're ready to pound your fists on the keyboard because I didn't rattle off a quick list of ideas that you were just going to find frivolous reasons to shoot down?
No fist-pounding here, and certainly not because you wouldn't rattle off a nonexistent list of ideas. That you think I would find them frivolous speaks volumes about the supposed ideas on that list; either they exist and even you find them frivolous, or they do not exist and you know all you can come up with will fit your projected description.
The important point is that there are plenty of ways to do it, it has to be done anyway to even apply to Binge On.
So you never claimed there was no reason for Binge-On to have an application process and that it should be able to be fully automated?
why have a human-required application process at all?
There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply. Every time you guys talk about this you hand-wave away the application process as "oh it's just a technical thing, they never turn services down!" So if this process is so simple that they just have to meet technical criteria, why have an application process involved at all?
Show me an automated approval section
Well, there's 3 from this thread alone. I'm sure if I looked harder I'd find more. People don't change or drop strong arguments, yet you've changed your argument several times and eventually dropped the argument that no application process is needed.
I know you need to pin something on me to get your easy 'face-saving' way out, but that's just off-topic.
First of all, what was off-topic? Second, go review my posting history and say that again. Given the above, who's trying to save face? Your problem is that you forget that the conversation above each of your comments serves as a text record of what you said before it, and that anyone reading that far will have already read that record.
So, now it's Europe, the US, and Africa? What about everywhere else? I specifically mentioned payment card systems.
So Europe and the US are the only places that exist in the world?
Hint: there are a great number of 3rd world countries with payment card systems; they typically run whatever other countries happen to throw away; they won't be using chips anytime soon.
On the interior surface...
Ehm...
Anyone sophisticated enough to do the live remote attack can fake a magnetic stripe in real time too, so it buys you _nothing_
Considering that the stripe would be read as the card got pulled into the machine, before the chip met the internal contacts, they'd have to do better than real time.
That's why you always point out your hidden cameras when you come back to collect them. If they already know, you just saved your ass from getting busted. Worst case, they want to keep the camera or maybe turn it over to police; but, then, you should be using a wireless camera transmitting to a nearby (but not on the same property) storage device and ditching it after each op, anyway; if you can't afford that, get a job, running scams ain't for you.
Nukes have GPS bruh.
As for the problem with whitelisting all the appropriate places, that's such a frivolous issue that I came up with 3 different solutions while walking out to my mailbox.
Somehow I doubt it. You seem the type who would either make shit up or provide the details, and I see no details.
Speaking of details, you keep getting so many details of how Binge-On actually works flat out wrong despite being constantly corrected that there's not point in anyone continuing to discuss it with you until you can demonstrate that you actually know what the hell you're talking about. I don't want to accuse you of trolling, because I see you post around here a lot and I can't say I've seen that from you before, but the only other options are willful ignorance or idiocy.
Trust that I've read all comments on this page, including both of the threads you've referenced. You'll likely note that I replied to comments in the other thread, as well, specifically pointing out why T-Mobile must have an application process for Binge-On. Letting the customers come up with their own "slow list" doesn't get around the copyright issues with re-compressing video streams (I don't agree with it, but it's modification under current laws), nor does it help with encrypted or otherwise undetectable streams.
Also, do you really think your typical user is going to know which hosts Netflix streams video from? Here's a hint, it's not netflix.com. Adding netflix.com to a user-defined list won't have the desired effect and will simply cause a shitload of headaches for all involved when customers complain of being billed for Netflix streaming despite having added netflix.com to their list. The reason Netflix streams can't simply be detected is that Netflix streams over HTTPS, so T-Mobile can't tell what the data is, only the source IP (which may or may not reverse to the domain the user added to their list), which is why T-Mobile has an application process that involves providers who use encrypted or stateless protocols providing a list of hosts from which their content is streamed.
I'm not sure what you think is consumer-friendly about a service that not only won't work as expected due to technical limitations, but will also get the provider sued to hell and back, increasing prices and ending the service that got them sued in the first place.
Last time I checked the price of cable and data services has never gone down, ever.
I used to pay $100/mo for a 1Mbps connection. I now pay $150/mo for a 75Mbps connection. Yes, $150 is more than $100, but it's less than the $7500 you'd expect if the $100-per-1Mbps pricing hadn't gone down.
More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid! T-mobile has neither the manpower nor the time to handle it manually for everyone like that
Let's see... if it takes 15 minutes (and that's being pessimistic) to review and approve an application for a site that already meets the requirements, an employee working an 8 hour shift can approve 32 per day, on average. Let's say there are 10,000 providers wishing to participate and 8,000 of them meet the technical requirements and get the 15min approval, it would take one lone employee 250 days to process all of those applications. A team of 10? Under a month. Of the remaining 2,000 sites, assume half need to provide a lit of hosts, or a netblock from which they'll be serving video, because their streams are served over a UDP-based protocol or HTTPS, this adds, say, another 15 minutes to the process, so it'll take a team of 10 a total of 2 months to process those 1,000 sites. That leaves the remaining 1,000 sites for the team of to to occupy themselves with for the rest of their employment with T-Mobile.
If you think 3 months is a long time to process 9,000 sites, consider than they've had barely 90 applications in 7 months. At that rate, I think they'll be able to keep up; though, it'll take another 65 years for the rest of the applications to come in.
If they did this to everyone's content without permission, you'd probably be here bitching that they were not giving people a choice.
If they did this to everyone's content without permission, they'd run afoul of copyright law and get sued to hell and back.